US Supreme Court declines to restore early voting in Ohio

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to intervene in a voting rights case from OH on Tuesday, leaving intact a reduction of early voting days that was enacted by the state’s Republican-controlled Legislature.

The court on Tuesday denied a request from Democrats to restore a week of early voting while the issue is being appealed.

The cutback still allows for 23 days in which voters can cast in-person ballots prior to election day, but it eliminates the so-called golden week in which voters can both register and cast ballots.

But the state’s attorneys argued that scrapping the days helped alleviate administrative burdens for local elections officials while reducing costs and the potential of fraud.

But following a new round of litigation, a federal judge in May concluded that eliminating Golden Week was an unconstitutional burden on black voters.

The high court’s action means voters can start casting ballots in the fall election on October 12.

“This much is perfectly clear: Ohio is a place where it is easy to vote and hard to cheat”, said Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted. An early lawsuit couldn’t stop cutbacks for the 2014 election ― and the Supreme Court at the time agreed to let OH officials move forward with the shorter early-voting period.

With no dissents, the justices said they wouldn’t block an appeals court decision that allowed the elimination of “Golden Week” under a Republican-backed law.

But Republican state attorneys countered that OH allows 23 days for early voting, and the Democrats “could not identify a single person who would be unable to vote under Ohio’s broad schedule”.

The law afforded “abundant and convenient opportunities for all Ohioans to exercise their right to vote”, the court added.

The appeals court had reversed a May ruling by a USA district judge who blocked the law and found that it violated voters’ rights. In North Carolina and MI, however, appeals courts had struck down state voting restrictions as discriminatory against minority voters.

The Supreme Court’s brief order did not note any dissenting votes on the shorthanded eight-member court evenly divided between liberals and conservatives.

Watson, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush, had said evidence presented in the case reflected that black voters use same-day voter registration and early voting options at higher rates than whites.