Ohio Election Reform Bill Would Enfranchise Voters
Newsletter Volume 4 Issue 2
August 27, 2009
A major election reform bill, H.B. 260, was introduced in the Ohio legislature, earlier this month, that would broaden the franchise in a number of ways by allowing voters to: update their registration address at the polls on Election Day and vote by regular ballot; eliminate the ‘wrong precinct’ rule and permit those votes cast in the wrong precinct but correct county to be partially counted; provide notice and a hearing to those voters whose registration is challenged; and prohibit challenges to voters based solely on a mailing to voters that was returned as undeliverable.
“This bill is about the voters and reversing laws and practices that disenfranchised voters all over Ohio,” said Donita Judge, a project director at Advancement Project, who has served as lead voter protection attorney in Ohio since 2004. “It’s an extremely important step forward for all those concerned about voting rights.”
In 2008, Advancement Project advocated for a directive prohibiting challenges based solely on a mailing from local boards of elections to voters that was returned as undeliverable.
“Under this bill, you have to have some personal knowledge or reasonably believe that a person does not live at the address that’s on the voter rolls to challenge his or her right to vote,” said Judge. “You can’t challenge voters’ eligibility, solely because notices were sent to them and returned to a board of election’s office as undeliverable, and thereby prevent those voters from voting by regular ballot.”
The bill would also prohibit challenges based on election officials’ inability to match voters’ information on voter application forms with information in the Bureau of Motor Vehicle’s or Social Security Administration’s databases. Matching errors are typically insignificant clerical mistakes and do not mean that the voter’s identity is questionable.
Prior to the 2008 general election, a high-ranking member of the Ohio Republican Party in Lucas County requested a list of the undeliverable 60-day notices that were required to be sent to all registered voters in the state before the 2008 primary and general elections. Judge said that statewide, 600,000 notices were returned as undeliverable after the primary, tens of thousands of which may have been returned because the voter had moved and overlooked the requirement to update his or her home address at the local board of elections after moving.
“The possibility that so many people could be prevented from voting by regular ballot and have to vote by a provisional ballot, which has complex rules, and is thus less likely to be counted, creates a risk of disenfranchisement,” she said.
Although the Help America Vote Act required the use of provisional ballots in response to the 2000 presidential election when many Florida voters were turned away from the polls because their names did not appear on the voter rolls, these ballots have often been distributed unnecessarily and used improperly. The requirements for having provisional ballots counted are more complicated and, for that reason, voters are often disenfranchised. In the 2008 general election, nearly 207,000 provisional ballots were cast in Ohio and about 40,000 were rejected.
H.B. 206 was prompted by a report from Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner to Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland and the Ohio General Assembly, which recommended a number of election reforms. A bill, based on those recommendations--sponsored by State Rep. Dan Stewart and Rep. Tracey Heard--allows voters who have moved and not updated their addresses to change their address at the polls on Election Day and vote by regular ballot in their correct precinct without having to vote provisionally.
Failing to update one’s address in advance of Election Day is the most common reason for issuing voters provisional ballots. If voters who have moved present current, valid identification at the polls, complete a change of address form and appear in their correct polling place, they would, if H.B. 260 is passed, get to vote by regular ballot.
“The rules that will allow a voter to correct their address at their polling place will significantly reduce the use of provisional ballots,” Judge said.
Advancement Project’s investigation of provisional ballots cast in Cuyahoga County in the 2006 general election revealed that 35 percent of the provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct in the 2006 general election were actually cast at the correct polling place in multi-precinct polling locations. H.B.260 would require ballots cast in the wrong precinct to be counted for all elections, such as statewide and federal races, where the voter is eligible to cast a vote, as long as the ballot is cast in the correct county.
H.B.260 shows that the concerns Advancement Project has are getting through to state officials at the highest levels, said Judge. “I really started focusing in 2006 on provisional ballots. I was constantly saying there’s an overuse of provisional ballots,” she said. “It has become the number one issue to fix in Ohio,” said Judge. “We were consistently bringing it to the attention of election officials, the voters and other advocates,” she said.
H.B. 260 is the culmination of two summits organized by Brunner, which were convened to identify electoral problems and reform the state’s election laws following the 2008 general election. Judge served as a panelist at the winter and spring Ohio Election Conferences to offer recommendations on the use of provisional ballots, which shaped the bill.
As the misuse of provisional ballots is a national problem, Advancement Project is working on a national level to limit the misuse and overuse of provisional ballots.
In July, Advancement Project Managing Director and General Counsel Eddie Hailes testified before the House Subcommittee on Elections of the U.S. House of Representatives to recommend the use of uniform and effective standards governing the issuance and counting of provisional ballots.
Sign up for text alerts
