On Wednesday Brunner issued a directive advising counties that poll workers may not challenge voters at the polls on basis of database mismatches.
"Brunner said the mismatches were largely the result of clerical errors, misspellings and dropped middle names, and weren't any indication of potential fraud," according to the Associated Press. "She said federal law does not have any requirements for what to do with mismatches, and argued that the database was intended to eliminate duplicate registrations, not provide grounds to disqualify voters."
"Ohio boards of elections would have faced grave challenges to successfully administering orderly and fair elections had this court action been successful," said Brunner. "It is my hope that both parties will now come together to support Ohio's bipartisan election system and allow the preparation and training I have required of our state's election workers to proceed without further interference."
The Threat of Caging Voters
In August, the threat of disenfranchising 600,000 voters hung over Ohio thanks to a controversial 2005 law that overhauled the state's election system. The law, which coincidentally "sunsets" two months after Election Day, enables a practice called voter caging, wherein voters can be purged from the rolls if they have problems receiving notice of the purge in the mail. Because of their high mobility rates, the law was thought to disproportionately impact minority and young voters.
"In particular, the new law requires that 88 county boards of election mail every single registered voter in their purview a non-forwardable notice letter 60 days before the election," according to an August 13 Project Vote press release. "Each board must make a list of any bounced letters that are returned as undeliverable. These lists, in turn, are made available as public records to individuals and groups seeking to use the list as a caging list to challenge voters.
"The amended challenge law no longer requires the county boards to give all Ohio voters notice that their right to vote is being challenged or to permit a hearing for them to defend their right. Rather, the new election law permits the boards to review their own records and make a determination on the validity of the challenge."
This aspect of the law was examined by Project Vote and the Advancement Project, who urged Secretary Brunner to ensure that every eligible voter can vote on Election Day and have their votes counted.
"Partisan, challengers who have obtained a list of returned letters shouldn't be allowed to strip Ohio voters of their right to update their addresses" said Teresa James, attorney with Project Vote.
"The lack of notice to challenged voters under Ohio's 2006 challenge law allows this interference to take place quietly and behind closed doors," James said. "This violates the principles our nation was founded on."
In response to these concerns, Secretary Brunner issued a directive to all Ohio elections boards, making it clear that Ohio voters must be afforded notice and due process before their right to vote is challenged, and that returned mail alone can not be used as a partisan tool to suppress the vote, according to a Sept. 8 Project Vote news release.
The Threat of Challenging Voting Rights of Foreclosure Victims
In September, the Michigan Messenger exposed an alleged GOP plan in Macomb County, Mich. to challenge the vote eligibility of foreclosure victims, who, according to the report, are primarily low income "African-Americans who are overwhelmingly Democratic voters." The story garnered national attention "" and outrage "" leading to a lawsuit from the Obama campaign, denial of such plans from the state Republican Party, and even damage control in other states where challenging the voting rights of foreclosure victims was on the political menu.
In Ohio, Secretary Brunner took action to protect the rights of low-income voters. On Sept. 24, Brunner issued a directive to county boards of election stating that they "may not cancel any Ohioan's voter registration based solely on the fact that the person is involved in a foreclosure process." She instructed boards that they must comply with the National Voter Registration Act, which says a voter's registration can only be canceled due to residency if the voter confirms such a change in writing, or if the voter fails to respond to a forwardable notice and fails to vote in two subsequent federal elections.
New York Times reporter Ian Urbina wrote on the issue of updating voter registration addresses after moving "due to foreclosure or any other reason" and how this basic requirement, unbeknownst to many voters, may lead to the unintentional loss of thousands of votes. In September, Urbina reported 375,000 Ohio residents filed for a change of address with the U.S. Postal Service, but only 24,000 updated their voter registration information. Ohio officials sent notices to residents in select counties who have filed for change of address, but did not update voter registration, Urbina wrote.
Project Vote has sent letters to Secretaries of State in ten additional states urging them to follow Brunner's example and take action to protect voters from challenges based on foreclosure listings.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
