League of Women Voters of Ohio v. LaRose (HB 458 challenge)

On Jan. 6, 2023, Ohio's governor, Mike DeWine, signed HB 458 into law. The bill imposed several significant restrictions on assisting voters with returning their absentee ballots (“return restrictions”). 

HB 458 makes it a fourth-degree felony for a person to help a voter return their absentee ballot unless they were (1) on a prescribed list of eligible relatives, (2) a mail carrier from the United States Postal Service, or (3) a private carrier returning an absentee ballot for a voter. In Ohio, fourth-degree felonies are generally punishable by six to eighteen months of imprisonment and/or fines of up to $5,000. 

The list of eligible relatives is limited to “the spouse of the elector, the father, mother, father-in-law, mother-in-law, grandfather, grandmother, brother, or sister of the whole or half blood, or the son, daughter, adopting parent, adopted child, stepparent, stepchild, uncle, aunt, nephew, or niece of the elector.” 

Otherwise, it is illegal to “possess the absent voter’s ballot of another” or “return the absent voter's ballot of another to the office of a board of elections.” This means neighbors, trusted friends, caregivers, grandchildren, or volunteers could be prosecuted for helping voters return their absentee ballots.  

On Dec. 19, 2023, the League of Women Voters of Ohio (LWV Ohio) and Jennifer Kucera, an Ohio voter with muscular dystrophy, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, asserting the absentee ballot return restrictions in HB 458 violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and was unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.   

Plaintiffs argued the return restrictions violated Title II of the ADA by preventing League members and Ms. Kucera from voting on an equal basis with their peers through failing to provide reasonable modifications. Without the assistance of people outside the statutory list of eligible family members, Ms. Kucera, who is unable to vote in person or by mail or use a ballot drop box without assistance due to her muscular dystrophy, and several League members with qualifying disabilities, would be denied meaningful access to absentee voting, and by extension, equal access to the vote. On similar grounds, LWV Ohio and Ms. Kucera also argued the return restrictions violated the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 

In addition to their ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims, plaintiffs also alleged the return restrictions violated Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act, which mandates that “Any voter who requires assistance to vote by reason of blindness, disability, or inability to read or write may be given assistance by a person of the voter’s choice, other than the voter’s employer or agent of that employer or officer or agent of the voter’s union.” The complaint argued that under the Voting Rights Act, assistance to vote included returning an absentee ballot and that the return restrictions directly conflicted with Section 208 and were therefore preempted by federal law. 

Finally, LWV Ohio argued the definitions of “possess[ing] the absent voter’s ballot of another,” and “return[ing]” absentee ballots in the restrictions were undefined and unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.  

LWV Ohio was represented in this matter by the ACLU, the ACLU of Ohio, and Covington and Burling, LLP.