CLEVELAND — The Supreme Court of Ohio has voted to uphold Secretary of State Frank LaRose's restrictions on how absentee ballots can be dropped off.
LaRose issued the new directive to all county boards of elections in August, stating anyone returning a ballot on behalf of someone else must sign a form stating they're following the law. His directive also limits anyone returning the absentee ballots on behalf of someone else to either do it in person or in the mail, which means the drop-off ballot boxes voters see outside boards of elections are not available unless it's for yourself.
James Hayes with Ohio Voice says the court's decision, which comes roughly three weeks before the Nov. 5 general election, creates unnecessary challenges for elderly and disabled voters.
"It's a continuation of a long trend we've seen in the state to undermine voting rights, roll back the gains in the 20th century,” Hayes, who serves as co-director of the nonpartisan group, told 3News. "We know it's going to have a real impact on voters this election cycle, particularly elderly voters, voters who might have issues coming out to the polls on Election Day and want to use (the) absentee ballot and need more access to that ability."
The problem, according to voting rights advocates and opponents of the directive, is that board of elections offices are open for a limited time throughout the day, while drop-off boxes are accessible 24/7 with surveillance.
"Around the country, there are tons of models of states allowing more access to ballot drop-off locations and there being zero problems," Hayes stated.
In a 4-3 decision, the Ohio Supreme Court voted along partisan lines to give LaRose's directive the green light, in part because of timeliness. Early voting began in Ohio on Oct. 8.
LaRose says the directive is to prevent ballot harvesting, which refers to the act of gathering and submitting multiple absentee or mail-in ballots. In a statement, LaRose said:
"I'm grateful the court has allowed us to proceed with our efforts to protect the integrity of Ohio’s elections. Political activists tried once again to dismantle the safeguards we've put in place, specifically in this case against ballot harvesting, and they've been rejected. This is the same policy that’s been used successfully in other states, and it's designed to protect both individuals and election officials from accusations of illegal voting. The court's decision should reinforce the confidence Ohio voters have in the security, honesty, and accountability of our elections."
But voting rights advocates like Hayes disagree, saying Ohio election leaders should make voting more accessible to voters instead of more restrictive.
"There's this narrative that there is sort of a problem with voting, when in reality, many of our election officials are the best in the country," Hayes added. "We've had seamless elections time and time again."