Ohio Democratic Party v. Husted
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
834 F.3d 620 (2016)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Starting in 2004, Ohio implemented a 35-day early-voting period, which included both in-person and absentee voting. The first five days of that 35-day period overlapped with Ohio’s voter-registration period, allowing voters to both register and vote on the same day; this five-day period was referred to as Golden Week. Early voting was open to all voters in an effort to expand voting access and prevent election-day backlogs. In 2014, in response to a bipartisan initiative, Ohio passed S.B. 238, which shortened the early-voting period from 35 days to 29 days, thereby eliminating Golden Week. S.B. 238 was subsequently amended to improve access for Black voters by expanding in-person early-voting opportunities on weekends and evenings during that 29-day period. Voter-registration forms were widely available, including online, and were distributed throughout the state. The Ohio Democratic Party (ODP) (plaintiff) brought an action against Jon Husted (Ohio) (defendant), Ohio’s secretary of state, arguing that S.B. 238 violated the Equal Protection Clause because the reduction in early-voting opportunities disproportionately burdened Black voters. ODP presented evidence that Black voters utilized Golden Week at a rate three to five times that of White voters because Black voters were disproportionately impacted by financial, time, and childcare constraints that increased the cost of voting. Ohio countered, arguing that S.B. 238 was necessary to combat voter fraud, to increase voter confidence, and to reduce administrative costs. The district court ruled for ODP, holding that Ohio’s interests, though compelling, were outweighed by the moderate burdens S.B. 238 placed on Black voters, especially in comparison to the pre-S.B. 238 setup. Ohio appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McKeague, J.)
Dissent (Stranch, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.