For nearly a decade, the ACLU of Ohio has defended the rights of voters to adequate voting equipment, fair registration and voting procedures, and secure ballot counting.
Several lawsuits were filed in September and October 2008 relating to the so-called “5-day window” during which someone can register and immediately request or cast an absentee ballot. While these cases began as a challenge to same-day registration, they evolved into a bigger challenge to the rights of all newly registered voters.
- State ex rel. Colvin v. Brunner– Two registered voters filed suit against Secretary Brunner asking the Ohio Supreme Court to reject same-day registration and voting.
- Read the ACLU’s amicus brief in support of Brunner, arguing that there should be no “waiting period” for registered voters.
- Read the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision, upholding same-day registration and voting.
- Project Vote v. Madison County Board of Elections: The ACLU, representing voters and voter outreach groups, filed suit against Madison County and Secretary Brunner, asking the court to declare that new voters should not be subjected to “waiting periods” or threats of prosecution for voting early.
- Ohio Republican Party v. Brunner(Southern District Ohio federal court) – After the ACLU filed suit in the Northern District, the Ohio Republican Party (ORP) filed suit against Secretary Brunner in the Southern District alleging that a number of her directives violated federal laws.
- ORP asked the district court for a TRO to prohibit same-day registration. Read the ACLU’s amicus brief opposing ORP’s request and asking the court to not impose a “waiting period” on new voters.
- Read the district court’s Sept. 30, 2008 order abstaining from ruling on same-day registration in light of the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision.
- ORP then filed a renewed TRO motion alleging that Secretary Brunner violated the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) by not properly verifying new registrations against computer databases. ORP asked the court to order Brunner to re-process all voters who registered since January 1, 2008. Read the ACLU’s amicus brief opposing ORP’s request on the grounds that ORP's proposed computer matching was unreliable and not required by HAVA, and that potentially removing voters in this manner would violate federal voting rights law.
- Read the District Court’s order granting the TRO.
- Secretary Brunner appealed the TRO to the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Read the ACLU’s amicus brief urging the 6th Circuit to vacate the TRO.
- Read the Sixth Circuit's October 10th opinion granting Brunner's motion to stay the district court's October 9th order.
- On October 14, the full Sixth Circuit, sitting en banc reinstated the district court's TRO. Read the decision.
- Brunner has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the en banc Sixth Circuit Decision. Read the application for a stay of the Temporary Restraining Order.
- On October 17, the ACLU of Ohio and ACLU Voting Rights Project filed an amicus brief in the U. S. Supreme Court, in support of Secretary Brunner's request to overturn the Sixth Circuit Court's decision. Read the amicus brief.
- On October 17, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the stay and vacated the TRO. Read the decision.
State ex rel. Myles v. Brunner
The McCain presidential campaign sent absentee ballot request forms to roughly one million Ohio voters. Secretary of State Brunner instructed boards of elections to reject any forms where the voter failed to check a box next to a statement that they are an eligible elector. Voters who received the McCain mailers and had their absentee ballot requests rejected filed suit in the Ohio Supreme Court. The ACLU, together with other voting rights advocates, filed an amicus brief opposing Brunner’s position as one of form over substance. Ohio law requires the request to contain certain information but does not have to be in any specific format.
ACLU v. Brunner
In April 2008, the ACLU of Ohio was victorious in a lawsuit challenging the return to non-notice technology in Ohio. Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner proposed the switch in December 2007, mere months before the March 2008 primary. The ACLU challenged these systems as unconstitutional because without notice, votes, particularly those in African American communities, are uncounted because of mistakes on the ballot. In light of new legislation outlawing the type of non-notice voting technology used in Cuyahoga County, the State filed an agreement not to use any type of non-notice technology.
Read the 02/10/2008 press release announcing the filing of a Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
Read the documents submitted with the Motion.
Read our 01/24/2008 press release announcing the lawsuit.
Read the complaint.
Read our 01/03/2008 press release.
Read our 12/17/2007 08.29.06 press release.
Read the 04.21.06 press release.
Read the 07.23.04 press release.