Federal Appeals Court Upholds Decision Restoring Ohio Early Voting Hours

[Playinghardball]

WASHINGTON — A three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday unanimously upheld a trial court ruling that restores early voting time in Ohio.
The opinion, by Judge Karen Nelson Moore, upholds a Sept. 4 decision that stops Ohio officials from enforcing an Ohio law that reduced the early voting period. Additionally, the trial court stopped enforcement of a related order from Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted that limited the ability of county boards of elections to provide for additional early voting hours.
The panel consisted of three reliably liberal judges, all appointed by Democratic presidents. If the state wishes to appeal the decision, it could now seek en banc review of the decision, which would mean that all of the judges of the 6th Circuit would rehear the state’s case if they accept en banc review, or the state could seek Supreme Court review.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/federal-appeals-court-upholds-decision-restoring-ohio-early#p0e010

[Gothmog]

1. I am reading the opinion now

Here is Prof. Hasen's analysis http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65853

You can read the unanimous 46 page opinion at this link. This result is as expected after the same 6th Circuit panel refused an earlier stay request from Ohio. Here are my thoughts on this opinion.

1. Like the district court, this (very liberal) panel of 6th Circuit judges reads both the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution as well as Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act very broadly to hold it illegal for Ohio to move from 35 to 28 days of early voting, to eliminate a Sunday of voting used by African-American churches for “Souls to the Polls” drives, and to eliminate “Golden Week,” in which a new (or moving) voter can both register to vote and vote early at the same time. The court barely mentioned the fact that every voter in Ohio has received a no-excuse absentee ballot application as well.

2. Both the Equal Protection and Voting Rights Act readings are expansive. On equal protection, the 6th Cir. panel uses the Burdick-Anderson balancing test (rather than rational basis). I think this is the right test, but the part that is controversial is the court’s holding that the burden imposed on voters in the mild cutbacks in early voting is significant.

I just forwarded this case to the trial lawyers