Hindel, et al v. Husted (amicus)
Case Dates:Monday, 17 April, 2017 - ongoing
Three blind individuals and the National Federation of the Blind, Inc. sued the Ohio Secretary of State in the federal district court for the Southern District of Ohio under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Plaintiffs claimed that the Secretary denied them equal access to absentee voting by refusing to provide an online ballot-marking tool on his website that would allow blind voters to mark their absentee ballots electronically. This tool, which is available as open source technology, is used by other states. Without this accommodation, blind voters cannot mark absentee ballots privately or independently, while sighted voters can do so. The District Court granted the Secretary of State’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, resulting in dismissal of this claim from the case. The Court reasoned that because the software requested by Plaintiffs was not yet “certified” pursuant to a state procedural requirement, its adoption would constitute a “fundamental alteration” of Ohio’s voting system that the ADA does not compel. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Sixth Circuit on February 24, 2017.
First, the District Court’s decision permits the Secretary to discriminate against blind voters, and could have far-reaching implications for voters with other types of disabilities. Furthermore, it was improper for the Court to elevate Ohio’s certification requirement for auxiliary voting aids over the ADA’s requirement of nondiscrimination, as federal law preempts state law. Finally, the lower court should not have dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim on the pleadings alone because the ADA requires fact-sensitive inquiries as to whether an accommodation is required.
On April 17, 2017, we filed an amicus brief in the Sixth Circuit, jointly with ACLU’s National Disability Rights Program, our fellow ACLU affiliates in this Circuit (i.e. Michigan, Tennessee and Kentucky), and other disability rights advocates. Defendant filed his response on May 10, and Plaintiffs filed their reply brief on May 24. The date for argument has not been set.