Commentary & Opinion
The following written testimony was submitted to the House Government Oversight and Accountability Committee for a June 23, 2015, hearing on the proposed amendment to Ohio's initiated constitutional amendment process. I sympathize with the goals of Sub. H.J.R. 4 but, for the reasons stated more fully below, oppose the proposal in its present form. Its vague and ambiguous language is an invitation to judicial lawmaking and would do more harm than good if adopted.
One to watch very closely.
Extending voting hours in response to polling place irregularities may be appropriate, but is far from ideal.
All eyes tonight – and quite possibly afterwards – will be on which party will control the Senate. The latest polling suggests that it will come down to eight states. Four of those states have seen litigation over voting rules or practices this year: North Carolina, Georgia, Kansas, and Iowa. All of these cases involve voter registration. The courts stopped restrictions in Kansas and Iowa, but ultimately declined to do so in North Carolina and Georgia. This comment considers the possibility that voting restrictions – or court orders stopping them – could make the difference.
Election Law at Moritz is nonpartisan and does not endorse, support, or oppose any candidate, campaign, or party. Opinions expressed by individuals associated with Election Law at Moritz, either on this web site or in connection with conferences or other activities undertaken by the program, represent solely the views of the individuals offering the opinions and not the program itself. Election Law at Moritz institutionally does not represent any clients or participate in any litigation. Individuals affiliated with the program may in their own personal capacity participate in campaign or election activity, or engage in pro bono representation of clients other than partisan candidates or organizations.