About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

74 Ohio St. L.J. Furthermore 1 (2012-2013)

handle is hein.journals/furth74 and id is 1 raw text is: Why the Ohio Early Voting Case Is Not a Threat to Military Voting Accommodations STEVEN F. HUEFNER* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .......................................... .......... 1 II. THE STATUTORY LANDSCAPE ............................ ........2 III. THE FEDERAL COURTS GRANT RELIEF ............................6 IV. IMPACT ON OTHER MILITARY VOTING ACCOMMODATIONS .............. 8 V. CONCLUSION. .......................................... ......... 12 I. INTRODUCTION One of the most closely watched court battles of the 2012 presidential election was the lawsuit that the Obama campaign brought against the Ohio secretary of state in an attempt to restore early in-person voting for all Ohio voters on the final three days before Election Day. The case-Obama for America v. Husted'-revolved around the simple fact that in the 2012 election, new Ohio laws permitted county boards of elections to offer early in-person voting only to military voters on these final three days, but halted early voting for all other voters at 6:00 p.m. on the Friday before Election Day. Because in the 2008 presidential election some 100,000 non-military Ohio voters had voted during the same final three days of early voting, and because the Obama campaign and its co-plaintiffs, the Democratic National Committee and the Ohio Democratic Party, saw these voters as tending to vote Democratic, the lawsuit was seen as potentially critical to the outcome of a close Ohio race. The equal protection claim at the core of the Obama for America suit was initially greeted with skepticism by many knowledgeable observers, who presumed that the state was free to provide these additional early voting hours, like many other accommodations, exclusively to military voters.2 These prognosticators were surprised when the federal district court issued a preliminary injunction, later affirmed by the Sixth Circuit, requiring Ohio to offer all other voters the same early voting opportunities that it provided to Professor of Law and Senior Fellow of Election Law C@& Moritz, The Ohio State University Michael E. Moritz College of Law. I am grateful for the advice and encouragement of my Election Lav a Moritz colleagues Terri Enns and Ned Foley. 1697 F.3d 423, 423 (6th Cir. 2012). 2See, e.g., Edward B. Foley, Analyzing a Voting Wars Trifecta, Free & Fair Blog, ELECTION LAW @ MORITZ (Aug. 16, 2012), http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/ freefair/index.php?ID=9579 (predicting the argument would fail); Richard L. Hasen, Is the Supreme Court About to Swing Another Presidential Election?, SLATE (Oct. 15, 2012, 3:52 PM), http://www.slate.com/articles/newsand politics/politics/2012/10/if the supreme court cuts early voting in ohio it could swing the state.html (calling the plaintiffs' claim a major stretch).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most