Thank you, Chair Roegner and members of the Senate General Government Committee, for the opportunity to provide written, opponent testimony to Sub HB 472. My name is Collin Marozzi, and I serve as the Advocacy Director of the ACLU of Ohio.
The substitute version of Sub HB 472 needs to be debated before advancing out of this committee. There are several basic questions about the purpose of mail ballots that this committee needs to address before moving forward with a new procedure that ends voting by mail as we know it.
First and foremost, this committee needs to reckon with the two basic questions of what the purpose of photo ID for voter verification is, and what function mail-in ballots serve. At its core, requiring voters to show a photo ID while voting is meant to allow elections officials and poll workers to compare the picture of the voter on the ID to the physical human standing in front of them – essentially safeguarding against voter impersonation. Without the physical human standing in front of the election official or poll worker to compare the photo ID, the “anti-fraud” properties of a photo ID are hollow. Next, we need to acknowledge the important benefits of mail-in balloting, which is providing an option for voters to cast a ballot who are not able to travel, are not present in their voting jurisdiction at the time of the election, or do not possess the documentation to comply with Ohio’s in-person voting requirements. These are the most basic elements of mail-in ballots. Sub HB 472 fails to account for these two basic realities.
Next, the complicated, multi-step procedures full of exceptions, carve outs and “if this then that” processes needs to be explored in greater detail for the people of Ohio to have a full understanding of the consequences of this legislation. It needs to be said that this is not a “photo ID for all voters” amendment. Rather, this language redefines what constitutes an overseas and uniformed voter – definitions that must comport with federal law, it mandates the creation of an electronic portal for the purpose of accepting absentee ballot applications including “live capture” software and necessary security protocols and sets forth another multi-step affirmation processes in lieu of photo ID for certain classes of voters. Astonishingly, there are no safeguards against what the photos and video recordings voters must submit can be used for. Neither is there mention of retention schedules, or data sharing acknowledgments. Will these photos and videos be shared with companies specializing in facial recognition technology? Will they be shared with the federal government or law enforcement? Will they be public records as defined in Ohio’s sunshine laws? Is the electronic portal a certified voting and election system under the regulation of the Board of Voting System Examiners? Sub HB 472 is silent on these questions.
There are significant questions such as how voters inappropriately denied a mail ballot under this bill will still be able to cast a ballot. Lines 1398-1400 state “[e]rrors in processing applicants through the portal shall not prevent an applicant from voting.” How? Will voters be directed to use the paper form, and comply with the secondary ID requirements demanded by that process? Will they be forced to vote provisionally? Will they be forced to vote in-person? Sub HB 472 does not specify.
There are numerous other aspects of this legislation that, at minimum, should give this committee pause to further explore. For instance, the repeated use of the plural “ballots” in conjunction with the singular possessive term “elector’s” throughout the bill. The construction of these sections and terms could cause significant confusion and consequences. Is a voter able to return multiple ballots at once? Does that section contemplate a voter being able to submit ballots in future elections based on the affirmations provided in a previous election? Additionally, in ORC 3509.032 of the bill, confined voters are omitted from the list of voters who may use alternative identification. However, confined voters must use the same absentee request form as hospitalized, jailed, or disabled voters. Is this inconsistency intentional, or accidental? These are only a few examples of the open questions not answered in Sub HB 472.
For all these reasons and more, the ACLU of Ohio urges you to reject Sub HB 472.
