Ohio’s 2020 Elections in the Wake of COVID-19

Read the original article: Ohio’s 2020 Elections in the Wake of COVID-19


Lawfare is partnering with the Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project to produce a series on election integrity in the midst of the coronavirus crisis. The Healthy Elections Project aims to assist election officials and the public as the nation confronts the challenges that the coronavirus pandemic poses for election administration. Through student-driven research, tool development, and direct services to jurisdictions, the project focuses on confronting the logistical challenges faced by states as they make rapid transitions to mail balloting and the creation of safe polling places. Read other installments in the series here.

Given Ohio’s 15 years of experience with no-excuse absentee voting, onlookers might have expected the state to adapt with relative ease to the challenge of holding a presidential primary in the midst of a pandemic. Nevertheless, converting the primary to one held predominantly by vote-by-mail on a tight timeline proved difficult. The March 17 primary date was pushed back only a few hours before the polls were set to open, and election officials worked diligently to scale up mail balloting by the new date of April 28. But a time-consuming mail-ballot application process, inconsistent information, mail delays and limited in-person voting led to significant voter confusion. Voter turnout was also lower than in most recent presidential-election years—though that may be due to a noncompetitive presidential field rather than primary conditions.

If the issues encountered this spring are left unaddressed, Ohio voters may expect similar confusion and delays in November. The March primary revealed at least five key challenges that will inform the state’s general election. These include operational burdens in processing mail ballot applications and voter confusion surrounding the application process, the state’s multistep ballot application process requiring up to five passes through the mail, confusion as to the date of the primary, resource constraints, and restrictions on in-person voting.

Our full report on Ohio is available here.

Delaying Ohio’s March 17 Primary Election

Ohio’s primary election was initially set for March 17. At the time, the state had tallied 1,693 confirmed cases of coronavirus infection and two deaths from COVID-19, the respiratory disease caused by the virus, and Republican Gov. Mike DeWine had declared a state of emergency. Once health dangers to voters became apparent, DeWine delayed the primary. However, the delay was finalized only hours before polls were set to open because of disagreements among Ohio officials.

The statutory power to move a primary election in Ohio lies with the state legislature. But by March 16, the legislature had not rescheduled the election. At the request of DeWine, a group of private citizens filed suit on behalf of elderly and immunocompromised voters to delay the primary until June 2. Just after 7:00 p.m. on March 16, Judge Richard Frye rejected their request.

Despite Frye’s ruling, the governor pushed ahead to delay. Shortly after 10:00 p.m. on March 16, DeWine announced that Department of Health Director Amy Acton would issue an order that polls would be closed the next day to avoid “the imminent threat with a high probability of widespread exposure to COVID-19” at polling locations. In response, a candidate for judicial office in Wood County filed a complaint in the state supreme court, alleging the delay of the primary violated Ohio election laws and separation of powers. By 4:00 a.m. on March 17, the Supreme Court of Ohio rejected the challenge, allowing Acton’s order to stand. Some confused voters still showed up at the polls that morning.

Following Acton’s order, Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose instructed election officials that the primary would be postponed until June 2, though he lacked statutory power to set the date. The Ohio Democratic Party filed suit against LaRose for perceived executive overreach, urging a conclusion to the election before June 2 (later dismissed as moot). Politicians on both sides of the aisle expressed frustration with the postponement.

The relevant branches of the Ohio government initially disagreed over how to conduct a delayed primary. The legislature rejected the proposed June 2 date and likewise rejected LaRose’s proposal to send every eligible voter a ballot. The secretary was also legally unable to send every voter a ballot application, as Ohio’s Senate Bill 205, passed in 2014, prohibited the state from sending unsolicited absentee ballot applications to voters in primary elections. Proposals for expanding vote-by-mail for the primary drew heavy criticism from President Trump and some Ohio Republican Party leaders. Eventually, however, the legislature, governor and secretary of state reached a consensus.

In a bipartisan, unanimous vote, the Ohio legislature extended the primary to April 28 instead of June 2. DeWine signed HB 197 into law on March 27. Under this legislation, Ohio instituted a mail-only primary, with limited exceptions for in-person voting. The voter registration deadline—originally Feb. 18—remained unchanged. Votes cast prior to March 17 would be counted, and absentee voting was extended to April 27. The final date for in-person voting was April 28, limited only to voters with disabilities and those without home mailing addresses.

The legislature rejected LaRose’s compromise proposal of directly mailing postage-paid absentee ballot applications to registered voters but called for every eligible voter to receive a postcard describing how to obtain an absentee ballot application. LaRose sent the postcard with information about absentee voting to more than 8 million registered voters in Ohio. DeWine and LaRose also produced a video promoting vote-by-mail.

Voters could receive an absentee ballot application form online or by calling their county board of elections (BOE) offices, and those without printers could make their own form. Ballot applications had to be submitted by Saturday, April 25, at 12:00 noon

Applying for an absentee ballot required voter effort and resources. Ohio law requires voters to provide acceptable identification on their application, such as an Ohio driver’s license number, the last four digits of their Social Security number or an attached copy of an acceptable form of ID such as a utility bill. Voters had to pay postage to mail applications and ballots, though some counties had drop-off options at their county BOE offices.

Yet county BOE websites presented conflicting information about absentee voting: Many websites indicated that absentee ballot applications were required to be returned by mail and made no mention of alternative methods. Others advertised secure drop boxes available 24/7 at or near their offices. Complete analyses of each county’s procedures are presented in the appendix to the full Healthy Elections report on Ohio.

The governor’s stay-at-home order limited in-person voting: None of the planned precinct polling locations was used, with in-person voting available only at the 88 BOE locations. Initially, only voters with disabilities and voters without a permanent home address (including unhoused individuals) could vote in-person. But on April 17, the secretary of state advised election officials to allow voters who did not receive timely absentee ballots to cast in-person provisional ballots. Therefore, those who requested an absentee ballot but did not receive one in time should have been able to cast a provisional ballot in person at their county BOE offices on the date of the delayed primary, April 28—though, as described below, logistical problems made this difficult for many voters.

By that date, Ohio had counted about 19,300 confirmed coronavirus cases and 1,100 deaths statewide. At the state’s guidance for social distancing (and promise of reimbursement), BOE offices took uniform precautions, such as providing hand sanitizer for voters and masks and gloves for workers, sanitizing voting equipment after each ballot was cast, limiting the number of people allowed in the building at once, and enforcing social distancing guidelines. Some counties went beyond the directions from the state; for example, Cuyahoga County planned to conduct health screenings on people entering the building.

Yet county websites advertised in-person voting options differently. About half of Ohio’s 88 counties did not mention in-person voting on their BOE websites. Very few specified that in-person voting would occur only at the BOE location, and not at precinct locations, and many where-to-vote instructions led voters to their usual precinct. Some county websites indicated no in-person voting would occur at the BOE location (e.g., Greene, Morgan, and Muskingum counties). Voting did in fact occur at each of the 88 county BOE offices. Finally, hardly any BOE websites mentioned provisional in-person voting available for those who applied but did not receive ballots in time. Varied information on county websites indicates that voters were likely receiving conflicting information about when and how to cast their ballots.

Challenges in Transitioning to Vote-by-Mail

Ohio voting rights activists criticized the state government for its failure to make the primary fully accessible. First, they charged, the state instituted its mail-in system only four weeks prior to the primary, short of the typical eight to 10 weeks in primarily vote-by-mail states. Second, the state’s reliance on mail overwhelmed the U.S. Postal Service. LaRose Advertise on IT Security News.


Read the original article: Ohio’s 2020 Elections in the Wake of COVID-19

Liked it? Take a second to support IT Security News on Patreon!
Become a patron at Patreon!