Bullies at the Ballot Box - Demos
Bullies at the Ballot Box - Demos
Bullies at the Ballot Box - Demos
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
aFter trouBle:<br />
Ohio makes improvements<br />
In 2004, <strong>the</strong> Ohio Republican Party challenged 35,000 newly registered<br />
voters just two weeks before <strong>the</strong> election. 150 Most of <strong>the</strong> voters lived in<br />
urban, Democr<strong>at</strong>ic-leaning neighborhoods. 151 The 35,000 names were<br />
identified through a classic caging oper<strong>at</strong>ion: <strong>the</strong> Party used mail returned<br />
as undeliverable as <strong>the</strong> basis for challenge. 152 Two individual voters and<br />
<strong>the</strong> Ohio Democr<strong>at</strong>ic Party filed suit, alleging th<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> pre-Election Day<br />
challenges viol<strong>at</strong>ed <strong>the</strong> N<strong>at</strong>ional Voter Registr<strong>at</strong>ion Act and <strong>the</strong> Due<br />
Process Clause. 153 The court granted <strong>the</strong> plaintiffs’ request for a temporary<br />
restraining order, finding th<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> voters’ constitutional rights were indeed<br />
in danger of being abridged by <strong>the</strong> challenges and <strong>the</strong> lack of opportunity<br />
for a hearing in <strong>the</strong> immedi<strong>at</strong>e run-up to <strong>the</strong> election. 154 Additionally in 2004<br />
a last minute court decision allowed partisan poll w<strong>at</strong>chers inside Ohio<br />
polling places to challenge voters’ eligibility <strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> polls on Election Day. 155<br />
The large numbers of challengers in Ohio was one of many problems th<strong>at</strong><br />
caused massive wait times for voters in many urban districts. 156<br />
Because Ohio experienced such serious difficulties with challenges<br />
<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> polling places on Election Day in 2004 <strong>the</strong> legisl<strong>at</strong>ure amended <strong>the</strong><br />
law to require th<strong>at</strong> any challenge to a registered elector’s right to vote had<br />
to be made <strong>at</strong> least 20 days prior to an election. 157 Only election officials are<br />
allowed to challenge voter eligibility on Election Day. 158 Challenges must<br />
be made in writing, “signed under penalty of election falsific<strong>at</strong>ion.” 159 Under<br />
current law, if <strong>the</strong> board of elections is unable to determine <strong>the</strong> outcome of<br />
a challenge, a hearing must be held within 10 days of <strong>the</strong> challenge, and a<br />
notice must be sent to <strong>the</strong> registered voter <strong>at</strong> least three days prior to <strong>the</strong><br />
hearing. 160 If <strong>the</strong> challenge is filed within 30 days of an election, <strong>the</strong> board<br />
has <strong>the</strong> option of postponing <strong>the</strong> hearing until after <strong>the</strong> election, though <strong>the</strong><br />
voter may have to cast a provisional ballot which will only be counted if <strong>the</strong><br />
subsequent hearing determines <strong>the</strong>y were eligible. 161<br />
Ohio also changed its law so th<strong>at</strong> any individual who declares th<strong>at</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong>y desire to vote and th<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong>y are eligible to vote, but whose name “does<br />
not appear on <strong>the</strong> list of eligible voters for <strong>the</strong> polling place or an election<br />
official asserts th<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> individual is not eligible to vote” shall be allowed to<br />
cast a provisional ballot. 162 In <strong>the</strong> 2004 election, Ohio Secretary of St<strong>at</strong>e<br />
Ken Blackwell <strong>at</strong>tempted to limit provisional ballot access severely, in<br />
contravention of federal law, because Ohio regul<strong>at</strong>ions allowed for such<br />
limits. 163 It should be noted th<strong>at</strong> provisional ballots are not a cure-all. Ohio<br />
in particular has had a high r<strong>at</strong>e of not counting provisional ballots. A recent<br />
court decision requiring Ohio to count provisional ballots th<strong>at</strong> are cast in <strong>the</strong><br />
wrong precinct due solely to poll worker error will lead to a higher r<strong>at</strong>e of<br />
provisional ballots being counted. 164 n<br />
14 • <strong>Bullies</strong> <strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Ballot</strong> <strong>Box</strong> | September 2012<br />
returnable first-class mail …<br />
and returned because <strong>the</strong> person<br />
does not live <strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> address shall<br />
constitute prima facie evidence<br />
th<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> person no longer resides<br />
in <strong>the</strong> precinct.” 139 While <strong>the</strong>re are<br />
procedural protections in place,<br />
including hearings, this particular<br />
provision of North Carolina<br />
law renders voters vulnerable to<br />
caging. 140<br />
ohio<br />
In Ohio, a st<strong>at</strong>e <strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> heart of<br />
caging controversies in 2004, any<br />
registered voter may challenge<br />
ano<strong>the</strong>r voter’s right to vote prior<br />
to <strong>the</strong> nineteenth day before <strong>the</strong><br />
election. 141 Although this is not<br />
ideal, <strong>the</strong>re are formalities th<strong>at</strong> a<br />
challenger must follow th<strong>at</strong> make<br />
frivolous challenges more difficult.<br />
The challenge may be made in<br />
person or by a letter addressed<br />
to <strong>the</strong> board of elections, must<br />
st<strong>at</strong>e <strong>the</strong> ground upon which <strong>the</strong><br />
challenge is made, and must be<br />
signed by <strong>the</strong> challenger giving <strong>the</strong><br />
challenger’s address and voting<br />
precinct. 142<br />
In August 2012, <strong>the</strong> Ohio<br />
Secretary of St<strong>at</strong>e issued a new<br />
directive providing valuable<br />
guidance for administering<br />
Ohio’s pre-Election Day challenge<br />
st<strong>at</strong>utes. 143 It largely mirrors a<br />
2008 directive. 144 Accordingly,<br />
hearings are required before<br />
cancelling a voter’s registr<strong>at</strong>ion. 145<br />
Fur<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong> directive grants<br />
election boards discretion over<br />
whe<strong>the</strong>r challenges are “facially<br />
sufficient” enough to hold a<br />
hearing in <strong>the</strong> first place. 146 This is<br />
important because it provides <strong>at</strong>