As of yesterday's post, Ohio's early voting, scheduled to begin today, was awaiting decision from the U.S. Supreme Court. Late Monday evening, the high court granted a stay to state officials in a 5-4 decision split along party lines, with the Republican majority casting the deciding votes. This effectively abolishes Ohio's Golden Week, wherein voters could both register to vote and cast a ballot at the same time for one week at the beginning of the early voting period, and pushes the start of voting to October 7.
Whether or not the other extended hours that the district court had approved will take place remains unresolved at this point. According to SCOTUS Blog, the next steps in the case would be for state officials to file a petition with the Supreme Court to review the case and the Court to rule on it. If both actions do not take place with adequate time before Election Day on November 4, then the additional early voting hours ordered by the district court will not take place in this election cycle. Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted has issued this directive with respect to the early voting schedule for the coming weeks.
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
Monday, September 29, 2014
Proposed bill would require first-time DUI offenders to have breathalyzer device on vehicle
Ohio H.B. 469 is set for hearing Tuesday with a possible vote scheduled. The bill, introduced in March, amends Ohio's OVI laws to require that first-time offenders of alcohol-related OVI offenses use an ignition interlock device (IID) if they are granted driving privileges. The current law allows these offenders to obtain limited driving privileges by court order, but does not require the IID. An IID is basically a breathalyzer attached to the car's ignition that will not start if too much alcohol is detected on the driver's breath. The IID would also send a report of the reading to the entity monitoring the device. Click here for the Ohio Legislative Service Commission's analysis of the bill.
Decision on Ohio early voting pending with the Supreme Court
New developments have arisen for Ohio's early voting laws, with voting currently set to begin tomorrow. Last Wednesday, a three-judge panel from the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a decision upholding the injunction granted by the District Court, which prevented the state from implementing voting laws that provided for less early voting time. We discussed the lower court's decision in early September, here.
In an opinion drafted by Judge Karen Nelson Moore, the Sixth Circuit found that the district court did not err in giving credit to statistical evidence presented to it and used an appropriate standard of review. It also found that the Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on claims that the laws violated both the Equal Protection Clause and Voting Rights Act, and thus affirmed the decision of the lower court, enjoining the measures that restricted early voting times.
According to SCOTUS Blog, Defendants (state officials) have now requested a hearing of the matter by the Sixth Circuit in its entirety and filed a request with the U.S. Supreme Court to postpone the lower court's order. Defendants alternatively requested that the Supreme Court hear the case itself. Defendants claim that the order of the lower court infringes on the state's right to run its own elections and that the court's underlying analysis of the law is incorrect. The Ohio legislature has also filed its own emergency application for stay.
The Plaintiffs (Ohio NAACP et al.) filed a brief in response over the weekend, urging the Court to allow the lower court's decision to stand. Plaintiffs argue, in part, that this will simply maintain the status quo and cause no harm to Defendants. Defendants filed a final response on Sunday morning, citing among other issues, Plaintiffs' alleged delay in requesting to enjoin the measures, which were established in February, as reason to grant the stay.
SCOTUS Blog reports that all requests were filed with Justice Elena Kagan, who handles emergency matters arising from the Sixth Circuit. She can now decide whether to rule on this alone, or with input from the Court in its entirety. Possible outcomes include a ruling either postponing the lower court's order or declining to postpone it, or a decision for the Court to hear the case without waiting for anything further to happen in the lower courts. If Justice Kagan or the Court postponed the lower court's order then early voting would not begin tomorrow. The request for an en banc hearing is also still pending in the Sixth Circuit.
In an opinion drafted by Judge Karen Nelson Moore, the Sixth Circuit found that the district court did not err in giving credit to statistical evidence presented to it and used an appropriate standard of review. It also found that the Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on claims that the laws violated both the Equal Protection Clause and Voting Rights Act, and thus affirmed the decision of the lower court, enjoining the measures that restricted early voting times.
According to SCOTUS Blog, Defendants (state officials) have now requested a hearing of the matter by the Sixth Circuit in its entirety and filed a request with the U.S. Supreme Court to postpone the lower court's order. Defendants alternatively requested that the Supreme Court hear the case itself. Defendants claim that the order of the lower court infringes on the state's right to run its own elections and that the court's underlying analysis of the law is incorrect. The Ohio legislature has also filed its own emergency application for stay.
The Plaintiffs (Ohio NAACP et al.) filed a brief in response over the weekend, urging the Court to allow the lower court's decision to stand. Plaintiffs argue, in part, that this will simply maintain the status quo and cause no harm to Defendants. Defendants filed a final response on Sunday morning, citing among other issues, Plaintiffs' alleged delay in requesting to enjoin the measures, which were established in February, as reason to grant the stay.
SCOTUS Blog reports that all requests were filed with Justice Elena Kagan, who handles emergency matters arising from the Sixth Circuit. She can now decide whether to rule on this alone, or with input from the Court in its entirety. Possible outcomes include a ruling either postponing the lower court's order or declining to postpone it, or a decision for the Court to hear the case without waiting for anything further to happen in the lower courts. If Justice Kagan or the Court postponed the lower court's order then early voting would not begin tomorrow. The request for an en banc hearing is also still pending in the Sixth Circuit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)