Ohio Supreme Court Upholds Restrictive Drop Box Rules
In a 4-3 ruling, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld a recent directive from Secretary of State Frank LaRose (R) that effectively prohibits authorized individuals from returning an absentee ballot to a drop box on behalf of a family member or voter with disabilities.
The ruling comes after Ohio Democrats filed a lawsuit in the state Supreme Court challenging LaRose’s controversial guidance, which stipulates that “only a voter’s personal ballot may be returned via drop box.” LaRose promulgated the Aug. 31 directive in the name of “election integrity” and preventing “ballot harvesting.”
Drop boxes have been the subject of litigation in multiple states this election season.
Democracy Docket is the only news outlet tracking and reporting on all of these cases — sign up for our free daily and weekly newsletters to get the latest updates sent straight to your inbox.
Under the directive, assistants or family members returning a ballot on behalf of another voter must do so inside of a county board of elections office, where they are also required to complete an attestation form. Unlike secure ballot drop boxes that are available 24/7, county boards of elections offices are only open during set operating hours and often have wait times.
Today’s ruling from the court’s Republican majority dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiffs waited too long to challenge LaRose’s directive — noting the fact that early and absentee voting already commenced in the state on Oct. 8. The justices did not, however, weigh in on the merits of the directive.
But the dissenting justices — all Democrats — said that although precedent “counsels against late interference in elections by court,” it “does not forbid a court’s intervention.”
“Whatever intentions accompanied the secretary’s actions, the result is noxious and repugnant to elections that are free, fair, open, and honest,” the dissenting opinion reads.
Opponents of the rules argued the directive will disproportionately harm seniors, people with disabilities and members of working families, who are more likely to need assistance with returning their completed absentee ballots.
The Ohio Democratic Party (ODP) alleged in a Sept. 27 complaint that the directive is at odds with state law as well as Section 208 of the federal Voting Rights Act, which ensures that voters with disabilities can receive assistance from an individual of their choice.
Earlier this year, a federal judge blocked the enforcement of an Ohio law that severely restricted who could assist voters with disabilities in returning their completed absentee ballots, after concluding the statute violates Section 208.
“Rather than implementing the federal court order, Secretary LaRose made up his own new voting restrictions,” the ODP’s lawsuit averred.
LaRose, for his part, seemed to blame the federal court decision for creating an “unacceptable level of risk to the integrity of our process” that left him with “no choice” but to implement new rules in response.
With early and absentee voting already underway in Ohio, authorized individuals who were planning to deliver another voter’s completed absentee ballot to a drop box will have to jump through additional hoops imposed by LaRose’s instructions.