Ohio’s Voter ID Law challenge dismissed by court due to lack of evidence of voter burden
Ohio’s 2023 election integrity law requiring residents to present a form of ID when casting their ballots is constitutional, a federal court ruled on Monday.
Writing for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Judge Donald Nugent, a Clinton appointee, ruled that Democrat-backed groups provided no evidence to justify their claims that HB 458 places an undue “burden” on Ohioans and their ability to vote. Specifically, plaintiffs — a coalition of left-leaning groups like the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless, the Ohio Federation of Teachers, the Ohio Alliance for Retired Americans, the Union Veterans Council, and a group called Civic Influencers — alleged that the law would “severely restrict Ohioans’ access to the polls – particularly those voters who are young, elderly, and black, as well as those serving in the military and others living abroad.” Plaintiffs’ suit was filed by a Democrat lawfare group founded by Marc Elias, a Democrat operative who helped spearhead the debunked Trump-Russia collusion hoax.
“[T]he Court finds that the challenged provisions of HB 458 are constitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments,” Nugent wrote, granting a summary judgment to Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, who was named as a defendant in the case, with the Ohio Republican Party listed as an intervenor-defendant. Defendants were backed by Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections (RITE), an election integrity legal group.
Signed into law last year by Gov. Mike DeWine, HB 458 requires Ohioans to provide a valid “Ohio driver’s license, state identification card, or interim identification form issued by the registrar of motor vehicles or a deputy registrar,” a U.S. military ID card, or a U.S. passport or passport card, in order to vote. The law also included provisions making the deadlines for requesting and returning absentee ballot earlier, eliminating the ability to vote in-person the Monday before Election Day, limiting the number of ballot drop boxes to one per county, and shortening the time period after Election Day in which a voter may “cure” their ballot.
In his Monday ruling, Nugent noted how the Elias Law Group was unable to provide evidence showing that the aforementioned provisions would “burden” an Ohioan’s ability vote in person or by mail and detailed how “the changes brought about by HB 458 make rather minor changes to Ohio’s voting laws, none of which meaningfully impacts anyone’s ability to vote under Ohio’s generous voting laws.” Meanwhile, LaRose “provided ample evidence that the changes to Ohio’s voting laws were enacted to help ensure and promote the smooth, prompt administration of elections, election security, and public confidence in elections.”
“Ohio is an example of why it is crucial to confront activists’ relentless efforts to undermine voting in America,” RITE President Derek Lyons said in a statement. “RITE is very proud to have helped defend Ohio’s important and commonsense election law.”
According to a local news outlet, it remains unclear whether plaintiffs will appeal the decision.
Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood
How do proponents of voter ID measures argue that requiring voters to present identification helps prevent voter fraud and ensures the integrity of elections?
Mentioned groups would face undue burden in accessing the polls due to the voter ID law. He stated, “Plaintiffs’ evidence falls well short of establishing that any identified group of potential Ohio voters is unable or substantially disadvantaged by obtaining the requisite identification under HB 458.”
The court’s ruling in favor of Ohio’s election integrity law comes as a victory for supporters of voter ID measures. Proponents argue that requiring voters to present identification helps prevent voter fraud and ensures the integrity of elections. Critics, on the other hand, contend that such laws disproportionately affect marginalized and minority communities, making it harder for them to exercise their right to vote.
In response to the court’s ruling, Secretary of State Frank LaRose praised the decision and emphasized the importance of maintaining election integrity. He stated, “Ohio’s voter ID law is straightforward, constitutional, and protects the integrity of our elections.” LaRose also expressed confidence in the ability of Ohioans to comply with the law, stating, ”Our citizens are capable and we have every confidence that they’re going to be able to fulfill this requirement.”
However, opponents of the law expressed disappointment in the court’s decision. They argue that voter ID laws disproportionately impact certain groups, particularly young, elderly, and minority voters. Critics also believe that the additional provisions in the law, such as earlier deadlines for absentee ballots and limitations on ballot drop boxes, further restrict access to the ballot for vulnerable populations.
The ruling in Ohio may have broader implications for the ongoing debate over voter ID laws across the United States. As multiple states consider or implement similar measures, courts’ decisions on the constitutionality of these laws will play a crucial role in shaping the future of election practices.
While the court’s decision is a significant win for supporters of the voter ID law in Ohio, the issue of election integrity remains contentious. The debate between ensuring fair elections and protecting individual voting rights is likely to continue. It is essential for policymakers, advocates, and citizens alike to engage in constructive dialogue to address concerns about voter access while upholding the principles of democracy and secure elections. Only through thoughtful and inclusive discussions can we strive towards a system that both protects the integrity of our elections and ensures every eligible citizen can participate in the democratic process.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
