Introduction

The case of Obama for America; Democratic National Committee; Ohio Democratic Party v. Jon Husted; Mike DeWine (12–4055, National Guard Association Intervenors included, 697 F.3d 423) addressed significant issues surrounding the regulation of early voting in Ohio. The plaintiffs, representing major Democratic organizations, challenged Ohio Revised Code § 3509.03, which imposed different early voting deadlines for non-military and military/overseas voters. The core issue was whether this differentiation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by unduly burdening the fundamental right to vote for non-military voters.

Summary of the Judgment

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court's decision to grant a preliminary injunction against Ohio's enforcement of § 3509.03. The district court had found that the statute unlawfully discriminated against non-military voters by restricting their ability to cast in-person early ballots during the three days preceding the November 2012 election. The Sixth Circuit affirmed this decision, upholding the preliminary injunction. The court concluded that Ohio's justifications for the differential treatment were insufficient to override the constitutional protections afforded to voters, thereby maintaining the injunction that ensured all Ohio voters could access in-person early voting without unconstitutional restrictions.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court relied heavily on several key Supreme Court decisions to frame its analysis:

• ANDERSON v. CELEBREZZE (460 U.S. 780, 1983)
• BURDICK v. TAKUSHI (504 U.S. 428, 1992)
• McDONALD v. BOARD OF ELECTION Commissioners (394 U.S. 802, 1969)
• CRAWFORD v. MARION COUNTY ELECTION BOARD (553 U.S. 181, 2008)
• Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections (383 U.S. 663, 1966)

These cases collectively underscore the fundamental nature of the right to vote and the necessity of applying rigorous scrutiny when electoral laws impose burdens on this right. Notably, Anderson and Burdick established a flexible balancing test that courts must use to evaluate whether a state's interests justify the burdens imposed on voters.

Legal Reasoning

The court applied the Anderson–Burdick balancing test, which assesses the character and magnitude of the injury to the fundamental right to vote against the state's asserted justifications for imposing such burdens. In this case, the plaintiffs demonstrated that Ohio's restrictions would significantly disenfranchise a substantial number of voters, particularly those from demographic groups that historically rely more heavily on early voting options.

The defendants argued for a rational basis review, suggesting that the different treatment of voters did not require heightened scrutiny. However, the court determined that because the statute imposed a burden on the fundamental right to vote through disparate treatment, the Anderson–Burdick standard was appropriate. The court found that Ohio failed to present sufficiently compelling justifications to outweigh the constitutional burdens posed by the statute.

Additionally, the court addressed the concerns regarding the administrative burdens on local election boards. It found that the state did not provide adequate evidence that the proposed restrictions would significantly impede the election process, especially given previous administrations of early voting without substantial issues.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the principle that electoral regulations must not infringe upon the fundamental right to vote without compelling justification. By affirming the district court's injunction, the Sixth Circuit set a precedent that states cannot arbitrarily impose stricter voting deadlines on certain groups of voters, ensuring greater equality and accessibility in the voting process. This decision may influence future cases where voting rights are potentially compromised by discriminatory laws, emphasizing the necessity for states to provide justifiable and constitutionally sound reasons when regulating electoral processes.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Equal Protection Clause

The Equal Protection Clause is a provision of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that mandates no state shall deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. In the context of voting, this means that electoral laws must not discriminate against specific groups of voters without a valid reason.

Anderson–Burdick Balancing Test

This is a legal standard used to evaluate whether a state's regulation of voting rights is constitutional. The test involves balancing the severity of the burden imposed on voters against the state's justification for implementing such a regulation. If the state's interest is not compelling enough to override the burden on voters, the regulation is deemed unconstitutional.

Preliminary Injunction

A preliminary injunction is a temporary court order that prevents a party from taking a particular action until a final decision is made in the case. In this instance, it barred Ohio from enforcing the disputed early voting deadlines while the lawsuit was ongoing.

Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit's affirmation of the preliminary injunction against Ohio's early voting restrictions underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding the fundamental right to vote against discriminatory legislative actions. By applying the Anderson–Burdick balancing test, the court ensured that Ohio's electoral regulations did not disproportionately burden non-military voters without adequate justification. This decision not only protects the voting rights of Ohioans but also sets a critical precedent for how courts assess and intervene in similar cases nationwide, promoting equitable and accessible voting practices across the United States.