Ohio election reform bill that includes ID requirement ruled constitutional by federal judge

CLEVELAND (CN) — Changes to Ohio's voting procedures via legislation, passed during a lame duck session, are "minor" and do not infringe on citizens' constitutional rights, according to a Monday ruling from a federal judge.

"This ruling is a victory for the voters of Ohio," LaRose told Courthouse News, "and it validates the work we've done to make our elections the gold standard in the nation for accountability and integrity.

"The safeguards we've adopted in Ohio ensure that our elections are secure, accurate, accessible, and constitutional. Unfortunately, that won't stop radical special interests from trying to deceive Ohio's voters into adopting new amendments that would unwind these critical protections. I'll do everything I can to keep that from happening."

The Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless and other nonprofits claimed Republicans in the state legislature passed House Bill 458 under cover of darkness and with little or no public input to drastically change the way the Buckeye State runs its elections.

Republican Governor Mike DeWine signed the bill into law on Jan. 6, 2023, which prompted the federal lawsuit against LaRose.

The legislation eliminated the use of utility bills, bank statements or other documents as forms of identification for in-person voting, and also limited the number of absentee voting drop-boxes to one per county.

Early, in-person voting on the Monday before Election Day was also eliminated under the bill.

The nonprofits claimed these changes would disenfranchise poor, elderly and minority voters, but Senior U.S. District Judge Donald Nugent, a Clinton appointee, disagreed.

Nugent found that, under either the Anderson-Burdick undue burden test or a rational basis form of review, the changes had little impact on voters and were constitutional.

He cited the 2008 U.S. Supreme Court case Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, in which a similar ID law was upheld as constitutional, and pointed out that, "today, at least 18 states, including Ohio, generally require photo-ID for in-person voting."

Data from the nonprofits' own expert witness, according to Nugent, showed the number of Ohioans with a valid driver's license exceeded the number of registered voters by more than 700,000.

"Given what appears to be a real possibility that all Ohio registered voters may in fact already possess a qualifying photo-ID, it is hard to conceive how the photo-ID requirements of HB 458 actually prevents someone from voting, or even impedes them from voting." (Emphasis in original.)

The elimination of early, in-person voting on the Monday before Election Day similarly failed to tip the scales in the plaintiffs' favor, according to Nugent.

He emphasized that the nonprofits provided no evidence of any individuals who were unable to vote in the May or August 2023 elections as a result of the schedule change, and also pointed out the early voting hours from that Monday were "redistributed" to other days.

The lack of evidence of any individual who was impeded or prevented from voting as a result of the single drop-box policy was fatal to that claim as well, while Nugent rejected the argument that the cumulative effect of all the changes rendered the law unconstitutional.

"Here," he said, "the changes brought about by HB 458 make rather minor changes to Ohio's voting laws, none of which meaningfully impacts anyone's ability to vote under Ohio's generous voting laws. It remains 'very easy' to vote in Ohio."

The nonprofits called the burdens imposed by HB 458 "severe" in their amended complaint and urged the court to apply heightened scrutiny to their claims, but even under that standard, Nugent was unmoved.

A comparison between the burdens imposed by the law and the state's interest in the regulations, required under such a review standard, is an easy win for the state in this case, according to Nugent.

The Elias Law Group, who represented the plaintiffs, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Other plaintiffs in the case include the Ohio Federation of Teachers, the Ohio Alliance for Retired Americans Educational Fund Inc., the Union Veterans Council and Civic Influencers Inc.

Follow @@kkoeninger44

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit