Filed Date: Oct. 24, 2006
Closed Date: March 28, 2018
Clearinghouse coding complete
On October 24, 2006, the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless ("NEOCH") and Service Employees International Union ("SEIU") filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against the State of Ohio. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, sought preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and declaratory relief challenging numerous aspects of Ohio's comprehensive voter-identification law set forth in Ohio's House Bill 3. The plaintiffs argued that the law was impermissibly vague and treated voters differently based on when they voted and what type of identification they provided, and thus violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, which was granted by District Judge Algenon Marbley on October 26, 2006. 2006 WL 8424056. The court found that a number of the phrases in the law were unconstitutionally vague and were being unequally applied by the Board of Elections, particularly as to absentee voters. Accordingly, the court temporarily enjoined the voter identification law as it applied to absentee voter ballots until arguments could be heard on the motion for the preliminary injunction. The state appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit stayed the temporary restraining order on October 29, 2006. The plaintiffs and the Secretary of State then conducted negotiations and, on November 1, 2006, entered a consent order approved by Judge Marbley. The consent order clarified Ohio's statutory voter identification requirements including what identification voters must show at the polls on Election Day.
The following year passed quietly, though the case again erupted in activity during the Fall 2008 election season, when the plaintiffs sought uniform procedures for counting provisional ballots. On October 24 and October 27 of 2008, Judge Marbley entered orders requiring uniform processing of provisional ballots and requiring that provisional ballots would not be invalidated due to poll worker error, respectively.
Roughly a year and a half later, on April 19, 2010, Judge Marbley entered a second consent decree signed by the parties. This consent decree provided the following injunctive relief for voters using the last four digits of their social security number for voter identification (SSN-4 voters): the State would not reject provisional ballots that, due to poll-worker error, were cast (1) in the wrong precinct but correct polling place, or (2) with nonconforming or incomplete ballot affirmations. This consent decree was set to expire on June 30, 2013.
The following year, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a decision holding that Ohio's election laws offered no protections for wrong precinct provisional ballots caused by poll worker error. State ex rel. Painter v. Brunner, 941 N.E.2d 782, 794 (Ohio 2011) (per curiam). Following this, the plaintiffs requested a modification of the consent decree on June 20, 2012 and defendants requested to vacate the consent decree on June 27, 2012. Around the same time a related case, Service Employees International Union Local 1 et al. v. Jon Husted, VR-OH-0080 in the Clearinghouse, was filed. The plaintiffs in this new case sought essentially identical relief as the current plaintiffs' motion to modify the decree, and so the court combined the motions. On July 9, 2012, Magistrate Judge Terence Kemp denied defendants' requests to vacate the consent decree. NEOCH, No. 06-CV-896, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94086 (S.D. Ohio July 9, 2012). Defendants appealed.
The two cases were consolidated on appeal. On October 11, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in a per curium opinion, upheld the district court's decision on the denial. However, the circuit court remanded the case to address the plaintiffs' motion to modify the consent decree in light of the equal protection issues created by the decree's provision for the counting of deficient-affirmation ballots by SSN-4 voters. Ne. Ohio Coal. for Homeless v. Husted, 696 F.3d 580 (6th Cir. 2012).
On October 26, 2012, Judge Marbly granted the plaintiffs' motion to modify the consent decree and order county boards of elections to count all provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct, irrespective of whether they are cast in the correct polling place or an incorrect polling place. Serv. Employees Int'l Union, Local 1 v. Husted, 906 F. Supp. 2d 745 (S.D. Ohio 2012). The court further stated that to treat deficient affirmation ballots differently for SSN-4 voters would deny equal protection to those provisional voters using alternative forms of identification. On November 13, the District Court entered an order clarifying this ruling.
On June 30, 2013, the plaintiffs moved to extend the consent decree indefinitely. District Court Judge Marbly granted the plaintiffs' motion, but opted to extend the decree for only one election cycle, until December 31, 2016.
On January 14, 2014, the parties entered into a confidential agreement that would lead to a complete settlement if the court were to vacate its clarifying ruling made on November 13, 2012. The District Court vacated the clarifying order on February 7, 2014.
The plaintiffs filed a second supplemental amended complaint on Oct. 30, 2014, based on subsequent events. Two new laws were signed in February 2014. The plaintiffs sought to permanently enjoin portions of S.B. 205 and S.B. 216, arguing that they "will unlawfully disenfranchise thousands of Ohio voters who cast absentee or provisional ballots in upcoming elections—and who primarily are minority voters and/or voters who support the Democratic Party." If enacted, these laws would have effectively superseded portions of the 2010 consent decree. According to the complaint, the challenged provisions had the effect of requiring absentee and provisional voters to demonstrate an ability to read, write, understand, and interpret any subject before their votes could be counted. The complaint further argued that the provisions empowered boards of elections to refuse to count absentee or provisional ballots where there were "technical [or] immaterial errors or omissions." The plaintiffs challenged provisions requiring forms to be completely filled out, barring election officials from helping voters fill out the form, and shortening the time available to cure a defective form. Moreover, the plaintiffs argued that the laws were intended to discriminate against African-American and Latino voters residing in areas with historically high percentages of absentee and provisional ballot voting. Seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, the plaintiffs argued that the provisions in question violated the Voting Rights Act, as well as the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Litigation and discovery continued into 2016, at which point the parties prepared for trial. The trial took place over two weeks in March 2016.
Judge Marbley issued a final judgment on June 7, 2016, enjoining enforcement of some of the challenged provisions. The court found that the provisions in the two laws requiring complete and accurate information as a condition of counting the ballot, prohibiting poll workers from helping voters, and shortening the cure period were unconstitutional and violated the Voting Rights Act. The court found that "[d]ue to the [Ohio] General Assembly’s retrenchment and the social and historical conditions affecting African-American Ohioans, SBs 205 and 216 have a discriminatory impact on African-Americans" in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The court also found that the three provisions posed an undue burden on voters, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The court, however, did not find that the defendants had violated due process or that the laws had discriminatory purpose in violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. 2016 WL 3166251.
The defendants appealed the judgment, and the court stayed enforcement of its final judgment pending the appeal. The plaintiffs filed a cross appeal on June 22.
The Sixth Circuit (Judges Damon Keith, Danny Boggs, and John Rogers), issued its opinion on Sept. 13, 2016. That court affirmed the plaintiffs' undue burden claim regarding the provision requiring completeness and accuracy for the vote to be counted, but reversed the finding that the provisions prohibiting assistance and shortening the cure period posed an undue burden. The court found that the burden would be minimal because "[i]n most cases, poll-worker assistance will not fix the errors that result in the rejection of absentee and provisional ballots," and there was no evidence that shortening the cure period by three days would create anything beyond a trivial burden. The Sixth Circuit also reversed the finding of disparate impact, ultimately concluding there was no violation of the Voting Rights Act. The court did not find the statistics supporting a disparate impact finding to be persuasive, nor did it find that the ballot form constituted a literacy test by asking basic identification questions. The court affirmed all other lower court findings. 837 F.3d 612. As a result, the Sixth Circuit left in place only certain portions of the permanent injunction barring enforcement of parts of SB 205. The remainder of the injunction was overturned.
The Sixth Circuit denied a rehearing en banc on Oct. 13, and the Supreme Court denied cert on June 19, 2017.
Meanwhile, on Oct. 12, 2016, the court awarded $2,618,140.78 in attorney's fees for litigation conducted in 2012 and 2013. Following mediation, the court entered a stipulated judgment regarding all attorney's fees and costs stemming from the litigation. On March 28, 2018, the state defendants agreed to pay a total of $1,100,000, split between the three law firms representing the plaintiffs.
On April 28, 2017, the court denied the plaintiff's motion to extend the April 19, 2010 consent decree. The consent decree therefore expired on April 28, 2017.
There has been no docket activity since 2018, but the injunction against parts of SB 205 remains in effect.
Summary Authors
Richard Jolly (10/14/2014)
Virginia Weeks (3/11/2018)
Hope Brinn (5/14/2020)
Service Employees International Union, Local #1 v. Husted, Southern District of Ohio (2012)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4526699/parties/the-northeast-ohio-coalition-for-the-homeless-v-husted/
Cook, Deborah L. (Ohio)
Gibbons, Julia Smith (Tennessee)
Kemp, Terence Peter (Ohio)
Marbley, Algenon L. (Ohio)
McKeague, David William (Michigan)
Moore, Karen Nelson (Ohio)
Sargus, Edmund A. Jr. (Ohio)
Tarnow, Arthur J. (Michigan)
Berzon, Stephen P. (California)
Chandra, Subodh (Ohio)
Cook, Deborah L. (Ohio)
Gibbons, Julia Smith (Tennessee)
Kemp, Terence Peter (Ohio)
Marbley, Algenon L. (Ohio)
McKeague, David William (Michigan)
Moore, Karen Nelson (Ohio)
Sargus, Edmund A. Jr. (Ohio)
Tarnow, Arthur J. (Michigan)
Berzon, Stephen P. (California)
Chandra, Subodh (Ohio)
Chisholm, Barbara J. (California)
Crawford, Ana P (Ohio)
Fuller, Jennifer Nicole (Ohio)
Gentry, Caroline (Ohio)
Gottman, Andrew J (Ohio)
Gupta, Sandhya (Ohio)
Hallinan, Paul Gerard (Ohio)
Harshman, Cathrine J. (Ohio)
Hollenbaugh, H. Ritchey (Ohio)
Hunter, Michael J. (Ohio)
Klaus, Jared Michael (Ohio)
Leonard, Danielle E. (California)
Leyton, Stacey M. (California)
Miller, Daniel B (Ohio)
Screen, Donald P. (Ohio)
Sestile, Lindsay M (Ohio)
Sletvold, Ashlie Case (Ohio)
Butcher-Lyden, Erin (Ohio)
Carwile, Tiffany L. (Ohio)
Chin, Pearl M. (Ohio)
Coglianese, Richard N. (Ohio)
Conover, Brodi J (Ohio)
Coontz, Bridget C (Ohio)
Corl, Christina (Ohio)
Epstein, Aaron D. (Ohio)
Gale, Erick D (Ohio)
Hertel, Kari Bowie (Ohio)
James, Larry Holliday (Ohio)
Jennings, Sharon A. (Ohio)
Petro, Jim (Ohio)
Pierce, Sarah E. (Ohio)
Richardson, Ryan L (Ohio)
Rosenthal, Joseph Norbert (Ohio)
Scheeser, Amanda L (Ohio)
Schuler, Michael J. (Ohio)
Sikora, Damian W (Ohio)
Todd, William M (Ohio)
Voigt, Steven T. (Ohio)
Armstrong, Maria J. (Ohio)
Atkins, Maureen O'Leary (Ohio)
Aveni, Carl A (Ohio)
Birck, Mary Lynne (Ohio)
Bryan, Beth A. (Ohio)
Calcaterra, Craig A (Ohio)
Clinger, Derek S (Ohio)
Colombo, J. Corey (Ohio)
Corn, Peggy W (Ohio)
Dornette, W. Stuart (Ohio)
Englert, Christopher L. (Ohio)
Gerhardstein, Alphonse A. (Ohio)
Hunt, Holly J (Ohio)
Keller, Zachary Paul (Ohio)
Kulewicz, John J. (Ohio)
Lieberman, David Mark (Ohio)
McGinnis, Mark A. (Ohio)
McTigue, Donald Joseph (Ohio)
Nalbandian, John Baylor (Ohio)
Piccininni, Patrick (Ohio)
Schuck, James P. (Ohio)
Sferra, Anne Marie (Ohio)
Sineneng, Philip Bernardo (Ohio)
Slagle, Christopher N. (Ohio)
Soulas, Nick A. Jr. (Ohio)
Warner, Sean Matthew (Ohio)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4526699/the-northeast-ohio-coalition-for-the-homeless-v-husted/
Last updated May 11, 2022, 8 p.m.
State / Territory: Ohio
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Oct. 24, 2006
Closing Date: March 28, 2018
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Coalition representing Northeast Ohio's homeless population and a local branch of the Service Employee's International Union, on behalf of their interest groups
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Help America Vote Act (HAVA), 52 U.S.C. § 20901 et seq (previously 42 U.S.C. § 15301 et seq)
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Availably Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Amount Defendant Pays: $3,718,140.78
Order Duration: 2006 - None
Content of Injunction:
Issues
General:
Voting: