WASHINGTON, DC – On Friday, October 6, RITE asked the court to rule against activist plaintiffs in Northeast Ohio Coalition v. LaRose who failed to identify a single voter burdened by Ohio’s election integrity reforms. The motion for summary judgment points out that the activists, represented by Marc Elias’s law firm, do not identify any citizens actually restricted by the law in exercising their right to vote. And, because Ohio’s law is a commonsense, nondiscriminatory regulation regulating the process of voting, the state’s obvious and well-supported regulatory interests are more than sufficient to rule against Elias and his clients. The State of Ohio presented multiple, important reasons for its law, including that it promotes smooth, prompt administration of elections, election security, and public confidence in results. These interests are critical to the project of self-government.
“Ohio is well within its rights to protect its ballot boxReforms like voter ID serve the public’s need for accurate and unbiased election administration. The new rules also support a quick and accurate counting of the votes, giving Ohioans even more reasons to have confidence in their elections. The Supreme Court has already weighed in support of similar integrity measures, and we are asking the district court to halt this case, stop these efforts to undermine election integrity, and prevent further waste of the public’s resources.”
-Derek Lyons, President and CEO of RITE.
ABOUT THE CASE
Activists are trying to remove certain safeguards in Ohio’s election process, including rules on voter identification, mail-in voting deadlines, and drop boxes. Governor Mike DeWine signed new reforms into law in January 2023, which allow Ohio voters to vote in person with a free, readily available photo ID or by mail using the last four digits of their social security number to confirm their identity. The new law keeps four weeks of no-excuse mail-in voting, and provides that each of Ohio’s 88 counties can maintain a drop-box that must be available 24-7 and monitored by video surveillance. RITE-backed plaintiffs have intervened to defend Ohio’s law.
RITE’s motion for summary judgment argues:
- “HB 458’s changes promote election integrity, smooth and prompt election administration, and public confidence in election results.”
- “Plaintiffs have failed to identify even a single voter who was prevented from—or even impeded in—voting in either of these elections due to any provision of HB 458.”
RITE will continue to support Ohio voters in defending their state’s election integrity protections.
