Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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.

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

Voters lining up to vote.

Voters line up at the Oak Lawn Branch Library voting center on Primary Election Day in Dallas on March 3, 2026. Republicans' decision to hold a split primary from the Democrats and to eliminate countywide voting forced Dallas County voters to cast ballots at assigned neighborhood precincts, leading to confusion. Republicans have now decided to use countywide polling locations for the May 26 runoff election.

Shelby Tauber for The Texas Tribune

Dallas County GOP Will Agree To Use Countywide Voting Sites for May 26 Runoff Election

Dallas County Republicans will agree to allow voters to cast ballots at countywide voting sites for the May 26 runoff election after a switch to precinct-based voting sites caused chaos, the county party chair said Tuesday.

Dallas County Republican Chairman Allen West supported the use of precinct-based sites earlier this month, but said using precincts again for the runoff would expose the county party to “increased risk and voter confusion” because the county is planning to use countywide sites for upcoming municipal elections and early voting.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person signing a piece of paper with other people around them.

Javon Jackson, center, was able to register to vote following passage of a 2019 Nevada law that restored voting rights to formerly incarcerated individuals.

The Nation Is Missing Millions of Voters Due to Lack of Rights for Former Felons

If you gathered every American with a prison record into one contiguous territory and admitted it to the union, you would create the 12th-largest state. It would be home to at least 7 million to 8 million people and hold a dozen votes in the Electoral College.

In a close presidential race, this hypothetical state of the formerly incarcerated could decide who wins the White House.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

An analysis of Trump’s SAVE Act strategy, the voter ID debate, and how Pew data is being misused—exploring election integrity, voter suppression, and the political fight shaping U.S. democracy.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Stop Fighting Voter ID. Start Defining It.

President Trump doesn't need the SAVE America Act to pass. He only needs the debate to continue. Every minute spent arguing about voter suppression repeats the underlying premise — that noncitizen voting is a real and widespread problem — until it feels like an established fact. The question is whether Democrats will contest Republicans’ definition before the frame hardens.

Trump's claim that 88% of Americans support the bill traces to a Pew Research Center survey — a survey that found 83% support a “government-issued photo ID to vote,” not extreme vetting for proof of citizenship. That support included 95% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats, indicating genuine, broad, bipartisan support for a basic civic principle. That's worth taking seriously.

Keep ReadingShow less
People standing at voting booths.

The proposed SAVE Act and MEGA Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, risking the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible Americans.

Getty Images, EvgeniyShkolenko

The SAVE Act is a Solution in Search of A Problem

The federal government seems to be barreling toward a federal election power grab. Trump's State of the Union address called for the Senate to push through the SAVE Act, which has already passed the House, in the name of so-called "election integrity." And the SAVE Act isn’t the only such bill. Like the SAVE Act, the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act—introduced in the House—would require voters to provide a document outlined in the Act that allegedly proves their U.S. citizenship. We’ve been down this road before in Texas, and spoiler alert: it was unworkable.

Both the SAVE and MEGA Acts would disenfranchise millions of eligible U.S. citizens without making our federal elections more secure. They seek to roll out a faulty federal voter registration system, despite the existing separate registration and voting process for state and local elections. And these Acts target a minuscule “problem”—but would unleash mass voter purges and confusion.

Keep ReadingShow less