Isabella Carter
Voting is a cornerstone of democracy, allowing individuals from all walks of life to make their voices heard. However, in recent years, there has been a growing concern over restrictive voting laws in Ohio, which have been criticised for creating barriers to the ballot box and making it more difficult for certain groups, such as those with disabilities, to exercise their civic duty. This has led to legal challenges, with organisations like the ACLU of Ohio taking the state to court over laws that they argue criminalise those who help voters with disabilities and restrict voter access. With the Ohio GOP intervening in lawsuits and defending ballot restrictions, the question arises: is the act of voting protected by the Ohio Constitution, and what does this mean for the democratic process and the rights of Ohioans?
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Voting rights | Protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments |
| Voting access | Restricted by HB 458, which criminalises those who help voters with disabilities |
| Ballot access | Restricted by Ohio law, but struck down by the Supreme Court in Williams v. Rhodes (1968)> |
| Voter suppression | Present in Ohio, according to the ACLU |
| Gerrymandering | Not mentioned in Ohio's constitution |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Voting restrictions in Ohio
In addition to HB 458, there have been other instances of voting restrictions in Ohio. In Williams v. Rhodes (1968), the United States Supreme Court struck down Ohio ballot access laws on First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds. However, the Court has subsequently upheld such laws in several other cases. State constitutions have varying requirements for the length of citizenship and residency of the governor, and voting in state and Congressional elections can be severely restricted by state laws.
In 2022, Ohio had a ballot measure that specifically stated that "only" a citizen can vote in an election. This measure was similar to those in Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, and North Dakota. Federal restrictions or enforcement against voter suppression techniques are in place to help prevent gerrymandering and ensure that all citizens can cast their ballots without unnecessary hindrance.
Reviving Democracy: Breathing Life into Dead Constitutions
You may want to see also
Voting rights for people with disabilities
Voting is a fundamental part of democracy, allowing people from all walks of life to express their opinions and values. In Ohio, the ACLU is currently challenging HB 458, a law that criminalises those who assist voters with disabilities. Signed into law by Governor DeWine in January 2023, HB 458 has been criticised for imposing new restrictions on voting, making it more difficult for people with disabilities to exercise their civic duty.
The ACLU of Ohio believes that lawmakers should focus on increasing voter access rather than creating barriers to the ballot box, particularly for historically marginalised communities. They argue that HB 458 does not protect voter access but instead isolates a subset of voters who deserve the opportunity to participate in elections.
While the Ohio GOP has defended the law as a "ballot harvesting ban," the ACLU maintains that the litigation specifically addresses voters with disabilities who require assistance in returning their ballots. They emphasise their commitment to ensuring that all Ohioans can vote without facing unnecessary and unconstitutional obstacles.
In the past, the United States Supreme Court has struck down Ohio ballot access laws on First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds in Williams v. Rhodes (1968). However, it has also upheld such laws in other cases, demonstrating the ongoing legal battles surrounding voting rights in the state.
As of 2022, five state constitutions, including Ohio, specifically state that only citizens can vote in elections. This highlights the importance of ensuring that all eligible citizens, including those with disabilities, have equal access to the voting process.
Illegal Lobbying: Constitutional Protection or Loophole?
You may want to see also
Ballot harvesting bans
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Ohio is taking the state to court over HB 458, a law criminalising those who help voters with disabilities. The ACLU argues that the law does not protect voter access, but instead allows lawmakers to isolate a subset of voters who deserve to be able to complete their civic duty. The Ohio GOP has intervened in the lawsuit, claiming they are defending a 'ballot harvesting ban'.
The ACLU has hit back at this claim, stating that the litigation addresses only voters with disabilities who need assistance returning their ballot. They argue that attempts to mischaracterise and politicise this civil rights issue are shameful. The organisation is committed to ensuring that all Ohioans can cast their ballots without the hindrance of unnecessary and unconstitutional barriers introduced by Ohio lawmakers.
Ballot harvesting is the practice of collecting and submitting ballots on behalf of voters. It is often associated with voter fraud and has been a controversial issue in recent years. Opponents of ballot harvesting argue that it can lead to voter coercion and intimidation, as well as provide opportunities for fraud. Proponents, on the other hand, argue that it can help increase voter turnout, particularly among vulnerable populations such as the elderly, disabled, and those without reliable transportation.
In the context of Ohio's restrictive voting law, the term 'ballot harvesting ban' has been used to describe the state's efforts to prevent individuals from assisting voters with disabilities in casting their ballots. The ACLU of Ohio has criticised this characterisation, arguing that it is a narrow accessibility issue that has been politicised and mischaracterised as a widespread ballot harvesting scheme. They maintain that the focus should be on increasing voter access and removing barriers to the ballot box, rather than creating additional obstacles for historically marginalised communities.
The debate surrounding ballot harvesting bans highlights the tension between ensuring the integrity of elections and protecting the voting rights of all citizens. While there are valid concerns about the potential for fraud and abuse, it is also important to consider the impact of such bans on vulnerable populations who may face challenges in casting their ballots without assistance. Ultimately, the goal should be to strike a balance that protects the security and accessibility of the voting process.
The Constitution and Church: What Protection Does It Offer?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Voter suppression techniques
Voting is a cornerstone of democracy, allowing individuals from all walks of life to make their voices heard. However, in Ohio, there have been concerns about restrictive voting laws that may hinder citizens' ability to cast their ballots. While the state constitution does not explicitly mention voting rights, it is important to ensure that all eligible voters can participate in elections without unnecessary barriers.
- Restricting the terms and requirements of registration: This includes imposing onerous requirements, such as demanding documents to prove citizenship or identification, creating obstacles for voter registration drives, or limiting the window of time for registration.
- Discriminatory voter ID laws: Implementing strict voter identification requirements that disproportionately impact certain communities, making it more difficult for them to exercise their right to vote.
- Reducing polling place hours: Shortening the hours of operation at polling places, particularly in communities of colour, can make it challenging for voters to find time to cast their ballots.
- Eliminating early voting opportunities: By restricting early voting or mail-in voting options, voters may face longer wait times and increased difficulty in accessing the polls.
- Gerrymandering: Redistricting is often used as a political tool to manipulate election outcomes. States redraw district lines based on population data every ten years, and gerrymandering can result in unfair representation and dilute the voting power of certain communities.
- Unfounded claims of voter fraud: Politicians sometimes use unsubstantiated allegations of voter fraud to justify imposing restrictive voting laws or implementing additional requirements that hinder voter access.
It is important to recognise that voting rights are fundamental to a healthy democracy. Efforts to suppress voting can disenfranchise eligible citizens and undermine the integrity of the electoral process. By understanding common voter suppression techniques, individuals can advocate for fair and accessible elections, ensuring that all voices are heard and represented.
The Right to Abortion: A Constitutional Protection
You may want to see also
Voting access for historically marginalised communities
The Ohio GOP has defended the law, claiming that they are defending a "ballot harvesting ban". However, critics argue that this mischaracterises the issue, which is in fact about ensuring that all Ohioans can cast their ballots without unnecessary and unconstitutional barriers.
Ohio is not alone in introducing restrictive voting laws. As of 2022, five state constitutions specifically stated that "only" citizens could vote in elections – Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, and North Dakota. Louisiana and Ohio had ballot measures in the same year.
The United States Supreme Court has also played a role in shaping voting access in Ohio. In Williams v. Rhodes (1968), the Court struck down Ohio ballot access laws on First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds. However, it has subsequently upheld such laws in several other cases. For example, the Supreme Court has ruled that states can require independent or minor party candidates to collect signatures as high as five percent of the total votes cast in a preceding election before the Court will intervene.
Overall, the issue of voting access for historically marginalised communities in Ohio is complex and multifaceted. While there have been some efforts to increase access, such as through litigation and ballot measures, restrictive voting laws and Supreme Court rulings have also created barriers for these communities.
Protecting Teacher Speech: Constitutional Rights in the Classroom
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
No, voting is not protected by the Ohio Constitution. In fact, the ACLU of Ohio is taking Ohio's restrictive voting law to court, claiming that it criminalises those who help voters with disabilities.
The ACLU of Ohio is the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, which is committed to ensuring that all Ohioans can cast their ballots without the hindrance of unnecessary and unconstitutional barriers introduced by Ohio lawmakers.
The Ohio GOP has moved to intervene in the lawsuit, claiming that they are defending a 'ballot harvesting ban'.
This severely burdens the ability of many Ohioans with disabilities to vote, as they may need assistance returning their ballot.
