News & Commentary

Voting is a cornerstone of our democracy, a key process that allows individuals from all demographics, regions, and walks of life to make their voices and values known. At the ACLU of Ohio, we believe that our lawmakers should be increasing voter access, not creating barriers to the ballot box and making it more difficult for historically marginalized communities to cast a ballot. That’s why when it came to HB 458, Ohio’s law criminalizing those who help voters with disabilities, we said: See you in court. An OverviewSigned into law by Governor DeWine in January 2023, HB 458 altered Ohio law by imposing several new restrictions on voting.  It severely restricts the types of acceptable identification for in-person voting, shortens key voter deadlines, limits the use of drop boxes, and imposes new criminal penalties on absentee ballot regulations. HB 458’s Impact on Voters The negative effects of this restrictive voting law reach voters far and wide – from college students and those without photo IDs to military members and out-of-state individuals. Adding insult to injury, HB 458 also specifically hinders voters with disabilities, many of whom require assistance from another person to vote. Under the law, which went into effect in April 2023, it is a felony for anyone who is not an election official or mail carrier to possess or return the absentee ballot of a voter, unless the person assisting that voter falls within a specific list of relatives. The list includes: a voter’s spouse, father, mother, father-in-law, mother-in-law, grandfather, grandmother, brother or sister of whole or half blood, son, daughter, adopting parent, adopted child, stepparent, stepchild, uncle, aunt, nephew, or niece. Notably, a voter’s adult grandchild, domestic partner, cousin, roommate, neighbor or other trusted friend or caregiver is not authorized to help. For many Ohioans with disabilities, this severely burdens their ability to vote.HB 458 doesn’t protect voter access; it allows lawmakers to isolate a subset of voters who, along with all other Ohioans, deserve to be able to complete their civic duty. For those with mobility issues or other disabilities, it can be incredibly difficult to travel to a polling location or a county’s ballot drop box. This legislation does not permit professional caregivers or other trusted persons or associations to return someone’s absentee ballot for them. So these individuals and volunteers now face extreme, unnecessary penalties if they merely assist community members or perform their caregiving duties. See You in CourtOn December 19, 2023, we filed a challenge against HB 458 along with the American Civil Liberties Union and the law firm of Covington & Burling, representing the League of Women Voters of Ohio and voter Jennifer Kucera. Jennifer is an Ohioan living by herself with a severe disability. Like many other individuals with disabilities, she relies on her caregivers to assist with various daily tasks. She cannot vote on her own.  Yet the people she depends on the most aren’t permitted to return her absentee ballot, even with her explicit consent. Many voters also rely on the critical efforts of respected organizations, like the League of Women Voters, to assist and offer voting support.Our lawsuit specifically challenges the provision limiting which individuals may return absentee ballots for others, as it directly violates the Voting Rights Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This unlawful barrier not only hinders the right to vote for many Ohioans with disabilities, but also criminalizes the key work of voting rights organizations.  We are specifically requesting the court to declare that this provision violates federal law and to order Secretary LaRose and the other defendants named in the suit to ensure that people beyond the approved family members are included in HB 458. This will allow caregivers and other critical individuals to assist voters with disabilities without the threat of prosecution.Partisan Actors Attempt to Mislead YouThe Ohio GOP has moved to intervene in the lawsuit, claiming that they are defending a “ballot harvesting ban.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Don’t fall for this attempt to turn a narrow accessibility issue into some widespread "ballot harvesting” scheme. This litigation addresses only voters with disabilities who need assistance returning their ballot. Attempts to mischaracterize and politicize this civil rights issue are shameful. Whether voting by mail, early in person, or in person on Election Day, we stand committed to ensuring ALL Ohioans can cast their ballots without the hindrance of unnecessary and unconstitutional barriers introduced by Ohio lawmakers. Follow us on social media or join our Action Team to stay updated on this lawsuit and all our legal battles.  

Chair Gavarone, Vice Chair Callender, and members of the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today. My name is Sean McCann, and I serve as a Policy Strategist for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Ohio. I am testifying today in opposition to Ohio Department of Health (ODH) proposed rule 3701-3-17. Accordingly, we urge JCARR to recommend the invalidation of this rule.I will begin by identifying the JCARR prongs we believe the rule violates. Then, I will provide our justification for these arguments.Firstly, ODH proposed rule 3701-3-17 both exceeds the scope of the agency’s statutory authority and conflicts with the legislative intent of the statute under which it is proposed. Additionally, the business impact analysis falls short of demonstrating that the regulatory intent of the rule justifies its adverse impact on businesses.Proposed rule 3701-3-17’s cites Ohio Revised Code (ORC) section 3701.23 as providing statutory authority. Given that the plain language of the statute deals entirely with reporting contagious or infectious diseases, illnesses, health conditions, or unusual infectious agents or biological toxins, it is unclear how this statute can be used to justify regulations regarding gender dysphoria. 3701.23(B)(1-4) all name specific infectious diseases on which local health authorities must report information to ODH; (5) names “other contagious or infectious diseases, illnesses, health conditions, or unusual infectious agents or biological toxins posing a risk of human fatality or disability” as specified by the director of ODH. Clearly, gender dysphoria does not fall under any of those categories. For this reason, proposed rule 3701-3-17 violates the first JCARR prong by exceeding ODH’s statutory authority as granted by ORC 3701.23.Further, ORC 3701.23 was enacted under Amended Substitute House Bill (HB) 6 of the 125th General Assembly, which modified the powers and duties of the Department of Health “relative to bioterrorism and other public health matters,” not relative to any general health condition. The law clearly was intended to address the preparedness of state and local public health authorities to respond to public health emergencies like epidemics, pandemics, mass casualties, and bioterrorism events. The incidence of gender dysphoria in individual patients does not fall under the purview of this statute. For this reason, 3701-3-17 also violates the second listed JCARR prong by conflicting with the legislative intent of the statute under which it was proposed.Further, ODH’s business impact analysis does not adequately address the adverse impact of the proposed rule. ODH provided only surface-level detail on the amount of stakeholder engagement they conducted prior to drafting and revising their rules. In response to question 10 of the Common Sense Initiative’s (CSI’s) Business Impact Analysis, which asks what input stakeholders provided and how that input affected the draft regulation, ODH staff responded with the following: “ODH staff participated in meetings with hospitals and physicians providing care for gender-related conditions and with children (and their parents) who have received such care.” Staff responded to question 9, which asks the agency to list the stakeholders included in the development or review of the draft regulation, with “N/A.”From these answers, it is impossible to get a complete picture of how ODH conducted stakeholder outreach and to what extent staff accounted for stakeholder feedback from a variety of providers’ perspectives, among other issues. For example, what works for a large hospital system might not work for a smaller health care facility that does not have the resources of the large hospital system. With that example in mind, we simply do not know whether all providers will be able to bear the burden and costs of these rules.Additionally, while the rule at least attempts to protect patients’ privacy (arguably inadequately), that protection is not extended to providers. This, too, represents a significant adverse impact. Given the increasing politicization of gender-affirming care, we have serious concerns that, once this data is made available in the manner the rule prescribes, individuals who would seek to target providers for harassment (or worse) will be able to identify them. Patients, their families, and their providers must be able to make the decisions that are best for the patient’s health without fear that their personal information will be exposed and used in this way.Thus, ODH failed to demonstrate clearly that the regulatory intent of the proposed regulations justifies the adverse impact on all impacted businesses.Again, for these reasons, we urge this body to recommend that the Ohio General Assembly invalidate proposed rule 3701-3-17. At this time, I would be happy to address any questions committee members may have. 

This year, the ACLU of Ohio is proud to partner with the Cleveland International Film Festival for their screening of the confrontational documentary, Power, directed by Oscar-nominated documentarian, Yance Ford.

Together, we work to ensure that all LGBTQ people can live openly without discrimination and enjoy equal rights, personal autonomy, and freedom of expression and association.

Prosecutorial choices can impact our local criminal legal system without any laws being changed.

The ACLU of Ohio is committed to reducing and ending mass incarceration laws, policies, and practices that have made Ohio one of the top incarcerators of its people on the entire planet. As SB 198 recognizes, practical solutions to vexing problems can help many.

Now, on this fifty-first anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we look ahead to living towards the promise of a country where we the people decide when and if we want to have children.

The ACLU of Ohio’s primary concern with HB 8 is the negative impact and consequences its passage will surely have for many students lives, their physical and mental health, and school staff.

The ACLU of Ohio supports Senate Bill 37 because it is a stride in addressing flaws in how our state government and its related bureaucracies wield damaging power over citizens and their driver’s licenses.