Three months after losing a U.S. Supreme Court Challenge to Ohio's Process for Removing Inactive Voters from its Rolls, the Lawsuit's Plaintiffs are back in Federal Court with a Related New Claim, the Notification Forms Ohio used to Initiate Voter Removal are Illegal.

The Plaintiffs say All Voters the State Deleted from the Rolls from 1995 through 2016 were actually Removed Unlawfully because the State's Notices for Removal didn't Comply with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.

On Sept. 14th, the Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless, and Larry Harmon asked U.S. District Judge George C. Smith to Reinstate All Eligible Voters who were sent the Deficient Notices, or take other Measures to Protect their Voting Rights in next Month's election.

Attorneys for Ohio's Top Election Official, Secretary of State Jon Husted, Disputed the Organizations' "novel and newly-alleged legal claims," and asked the Judge to Reject them. In Legal Papers, Husted says the Plaintiffs "did not submit any evidence of even one person failing to return the confirmation notice or vote because of the old notice format," and Argued the Confirmation Notices "complied with federal law."

One of the Attorneys who filed the Newest Legal Challenge, Freda Levenson of the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, said the Initial Lawsuit had challenged Ohio's Voter Removal Procedure on Two Grounds, the Procedure Itself, which the Court found was Constitutional, and the Defective Purge Notices. She said the latest effort asks the Court to Resolve the Voter Form Issue that wasn't addressed in the Supreme Court Decision.

"If someone was improperly purged and they remain eligible, we are saying they should be put back on the rolls," said Levenson. "We don't think it is that much of a burden." She said it's hard to know how Many Voters would be Reinstated if Courts agree with the Latest Challenge, but she noted that 7,500 Voters who were Purged by the Disputed Process cast Provisional Ballots last November.

In the Case's latest Incarnation, the Plaintiffs contend the Notices Ohio Voters were sent Violated the Law because they:

- Didn't give Voters the Deadline by which they needed to Respond to Avoid adverse consequences for their Registration Status. In Ohio, the relevant Deadline is 30 days before Election Day, but the Form said Voters must take "immediate action."

- Didn't inform Voters of the Consequences of Failing to Respond.

- Didn't provide Information on how a Voter Registered in Ohio could Remain Eligible to Vote if the Person moved to another State.

They said Notices sent to Voters after 2016 were Corrected to include the Disputed Information, so they aren't Contesting the Validity of Newer Forms.

Husted's reply noted that the Individuals who were most recently Removed from Ohio's Voting Rolls under the Supplemental Process would not have participated in Ohio's Electoral system, let alone Voted, for a minimum of nearly 10 years, despite the Ease of doing so. It also noted that after the U.S. Supreme Court's Decision, Husted told County Election Boards not to immediately Re-Start the Cancellation Process that was halted by the Litigation, and to instead wait until after November's Election.

"Any individual who was removed from the voter list in 2015 has had ample opportunity to register to vote," said a Legal Brief from Husted. "Not only could the person have registered to vote online or through paper form, he or she would also have received at least one mailing from the Secretary encouraging the individual to register."

Several Conservative Legal Groups filed Briefs to back Husted's stance. Judicial Watch estimated that more than 1.5 Million Voter Registrations were Canceled using the Disputed Forms from 2009 to 2015, and said Reinstating All of them would be "fraught with practical problems."

"The plaintiffs are asking the court to do something preposterous - adding hundreds of thousands of obsolete voter registrations at the last second," agreed Public Interest Legal Foundation President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams. "The plaintiffs should not have a second bite at the apple after they lost at the Supreme Court --especially when their wishes would effectively guarantee chaos before, during, and potentially after the 2018 midterms."










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker