Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Voting rights advocates say Ohio’s new primary plan is unconstitutional

Closed polling location in Ohio

Ohio's primary was originally scheduled for March 17, but Gov. Mike DeWine postponed the election due to the coronavirus crisis.

Matthew Hatcher/Getty Images

Voting rights advocacy groups have sued to stop Ohio from conducting its primaries in four weeks with almost no in-person voting.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court Monday, is the latest challenging efforts to keep electoral democracy going during the coronavirus pandemic. But it appears to be the first alleging the backup plan favored most by democracy reformers — switching to vote-at-home — is inappropriate if implemented too quickly.

The groups allege that the state's plan violates federal law and both the First and Fourteenth amendments by not providing more than a month to prepare for, and inform voters about, a primary in which almost every ballot will be delivered by mail.


The night before the scheduled primaries on March 17, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine cited a public health emergency and ordered the election postponed. He asked that it be held June 2, but instead his fellow Republicans in charge of the General Assembly voted for April 28.

Their legislation, which the governor signed Friday, says only the homeless and disabled may vote in person at a handful of locations that day. (It ordered the state to send informational postcards to all Ohioans, but not absentee ballot request forms.)

The lawsuit asks a federal judge to order a later date — the plaintiffs didn't suggest one — giving the state sufficient time to prepare. What should happen in the meantime, the groups say, is that voter registration should be reopened for at least a month before primary day, as mandated by federal law, and county election officials should be compelled to mail each voter a ballot with prepaid postage.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Immediate action is needed "to prevent the state from compounding the current public health crisis into a crisis for democracy," the lawsuit says, arguing that African-American and Latino voters will be disproportionately harmed by the new rules.

Democrats will award 136 presidential delegates in their primary, while voters in both parties will choose candidates for Congress, legislative seats, judgeships and some local offices.

Legislators from both parties rebuffed the proposals from voter advocates, who said the election shouldn't be completed before the middle of May. (Thousands of absentee and early votes had been cast before the delay was announced.)

"Under the General Assembly's undemocratic election scheme, thousands, if not millions, of Ohioans will not get to vote through no fault of their own," said Jen Miller of the state's League of Women Voters chapter. "Ohio's inefficient absentee voting system wasn't designed for this massive scale, especially under such an impossible timeframe. We call on the justice system to ensure that Ohio's primary is constitutional and accessible."

The ACLU of Ohio, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and Demos filed the suit on behalf of the League, the A. Philip Randolph Institute and four voters.

Read More

One Lesson from the Elections: Looking At Universal Voting

A roll of "voted" stickers.

Pexels, Element5 Digital

One Lesson from the Elections: Looking At Universal Voting

The analysis and parsing of learned lessons from the 2024 elections will continue for a long time. What did the campaigns do right and wrong? What policies will emerge from the new arrangements of power? What do the parties need to do for the future?

An equally important question is what lessons are there for our democratic structures and processes. One positive lesson is that voting itself was almost universally smooth and effective; we should applaud the election officials who made that happen. But, many elements of the 2024 elections are deeply challenging, from the increasingly outsized role of billionaires in the process to the onslaught of misinformation and disinformation.

Keep ReadingShow less
MERGER: The Organization that Brought Ranked Choice Voting and Ended SuperPACs in Maine Joins California’s Nonpartisan Primary Pioneers

A check mark and hands.

Photo by Allison Saeng on Unsplash. Unsplash+ License obtained by the author.

MERGER: The Organization that Brought Ranked Choice Voting and Ended SuperPACs in Maine Joins California’s Nonpartisan Primary Pioneers

Originally published by Independent Voter News.

Today, I am proud to share an exciting milestone in my journey as an advocate for democracy and electoral reform.

Keep ReadingShow less
Half-Baked Alaska

A photo of multiple checked boxes.

Getty Images / Thanakorn Lappattaranan

Half-Baked Alaska

This past year’s elections saw a number of state ballot initiatives of great national interest, which proposed the adoption of two “unusual” election systems for state and federal offices. Pairing open nonpartisan primaries with a general election using ranked choice voting, these reforms were rejected by the citizens of Colorado, Idaho, and Nevada. The citizens of Alaska, however, who were the first to adopt this dual system in 2020, narrowly confirmed their choice after an attempt to repeal it in November.

Ranked choice voting, used in Alaska’s general elections, allows voters to rank their candidate choices on their ballot and then has multiple rounds of voting until one candidate emerges with a majority of the final vote and is declared the winner. This more representative result is guaranteed because in each round the weakest candidate is dropped, and the votes of that candidate’s supporters automatically transfer to their next highest choice. Alaska thereby became the second state after Maine to use ranked choice voting for its state and federal elections, and both have had great success in their use.

Keep ReadingShow less
Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

The United States Supreme Court.

Getty Images / Rudy Sulgan

Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

Fourteen years ago, after the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the popular blanket primary system, Californians voted to replace the deeply unpopular closed primary that replaced it with a top-two system. Since then, Democratic Party insiders, Republican Party insiders, minor political parties, and many national reform and good government groups, have tried (and failed) to deep-six the system because the public overwhelmingly supports it (over 60% every year it’s polled).

Now, three minor political parties, who opposed the reform from the start and have unsuccessfully sued previously, are once again trying to overturn it. The Peace and Freedom Party, the Green Party, and the Libertarian Party have teamed up to file a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Their brief repeats the same argument that the courts have previously rejected—that the top-two system discriminates against parties and deprives voters of choice by not guaranteeing every party a place on the November ballot.

Keep ReadingShow less