Introduction

In the landmark case TOMMY RAY MAYS, II and QUINTON NELSON SR., indi v. LaRose, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit addressed significant issues surrounding absentee voting rights for jail-confined electors in Ohio. Plaintiffs Tommy Ray Mays, II and Quinton Nelson Sr., representing themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals, challenged Ohio's absentee ballot regulations, arguing that the state's disparate treatment of hospital-confined and jail-confined voters violated the Equal Protection Clause and the First Amendment.

The crux of the dispute centered on Ohio's requirement that most voters request absentee ballots by noon, three days before Election Day, with the sole exception allowing unexpectedly hospitalized electors to request absentee ballots until 3 p.m. on Election Day. The plaintiffs, having been arrested shortly before Election Day, found themselves unable to vote due to the stringent absentee ballot deadlines and the lack of provisions for jail-confined electors.

Summary of the Judgment

The district court initially granted a temporary restraining order permitting the plaintiffs to vote in the 2018 election and subsequently certified the class of similarly situated individuals, granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on their Equal Protection claim. However, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that Ohio's disparate treatment of jail-confined electors does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The appellate court emphasized that Ohio's interest in the orderly administration of elections justifies the state's absentee ballot regulations. Additionally, the court denied the plaintiffs' First Amendment claim, reinforcing the constitutionality of Ohio's voting deadlines.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references several key precedents that influence the court’s decision:

• ANDERSON v. CELEBREZZE (460 U.S. 780, 1983): Established that states can impose reasonable, non-discriminatory restrictions on voting as long as they serve important governmental interests.
• BURDICK v. TAKUSHI (504 U.S. 428, 1992): Clarified that while the right to vote is fundamental, it is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable restrictions.
• Obama for America v. Husted (697 F.3d 423, 2012): Applied the Anderson-Burdick framework to evaluate Ohio's early voting restrictions, setting a precedent for assessing voting regulation's impact.
• ROSARIO v. ROCKEFELLER (410 U.S. 752, 1973): Emphasized evaluating voting burdens from the perspective of affected electors within the context of all voting opportunities provided.
• McDonald v. Bd. of Election Comm'rs of Chicago (394 U.S. 802, 1969): Highlighted that once states grant voting rights, they must not do so in a discriminatory manner.

All citations are referenced as per the court's opinion in Mays v. LaRose.

Legal Reasoning

The Sixth Circuit applied the Anderson-Burdick framework to assess the Equal Protection claims, focusing on the burden Ohio’s absentee ballot policies place on voters. The court classified the burden as moderate, falling between minimal and severe, and determined that Ohio's interests in orderly election administration — including maintaining election integrity, preventing voter fraud, and managing administrative costs — sufficiently outweighed this burden. The court further reasoned that Ohio's logistical challenges in processing absentee ballots for jail-confined electors, as opposed to hospital-confined electors, justified the state's differential treatment.

Regarding the First Amendment claim, the court found that Ohio's absentee ballot deadline is a generally applicable, non-discriminatory restriction that imposes only a minimal burden on the right to vote. As such, the state’s regulatory interests justified the deadline under the rational basis review.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the state's authority to regulate absentee voting procedures without violating the Equal Protection Clause, provided that the regulations serve substantial state interests and are reasonably related to achieving those interests. The decision maintains the precedent that while voting is a fundamental right, it is subject to reasonable restrictions that facilitate the orderly conduct of elections. For future cases, this ruling sets a clear boundary for challenges against absentee voting regulations, particularly those involving disparate treatment of specific groups like jail-confined electors.

Additionally, the reversal of the class certification underscores the importance of uniformity in class actions. The court's decision highlights that not all members of a proposed class may share the same legal standing or face identical burdens, thereby preventing the broad certification of classes based on heterogeneous claims.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Anderson-Burdick Framework

The Anderson-Burdick framework is a legal test used to evaluate voting regulations under the Equal Protection Clause. It categorizes the burden a law places on the right to vote as minimal, intermediate, or severe. Depending on the burden's classification, different levels of scrutiny are applied to determine if the state's interests justify the regulation.

Levels of Scrutiny

• Rational Basis Review: Applied to minimal burdens, this is the lowest level of scrutiny. The state must show that the regulation is rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
• Intermediate Scrutiny: Used for moderate burdens, this requires the regulation to further an important government interest in a substantially related way.
• Strict Scrutiny: The highest level, applied to severe burdens, where the state must prove that the regulation is necessary to achieve a compelling government interest and is narrowly tailored to do so.

Equal Protection Clause in Voting

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ensures that no state shall deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. In the context of voting, this means that states cannot implement voting regulations that unfairly discriminate against specific groups of voters without sufficient justification.

Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit's decision in Mays v. LaRose upholds Ohio's absentee ballot regulations, affirming the state's discretion in managing the administrative aspects of elections. By applying the Anderson-Burdick framework, the court balanced the plaintiffs' voting rights against Ohio's legitimate interests in ensuring orderly and secure elections. This judgment underscores the principle that while voting is a fundamental right, it is subject to reasonable regulations aimed at maintaining the integrity and efficiency of the electoral process.

For lawmakers and election officials, this decision highlights the necessity of crafting absentee voting laws that are both fair and administratively feasible. For voters, particularly those who might find themselves unexpectedly confined, the ruling underscores the importance of understanding and adhering to absentee ballot request deadlines to safeguard their right to participate in elections.