OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Information & Analysis

More on the Ohio Election Summit

Steve Hoffman, Akron Beacon Journal writer and panelist in Tuesday's summit, has this editorial.  He specifically mentions the difference in provisional voting rates between Ohio and Missouri and the perception that Ohio's high rate makes it more prone to litigation in the weeks preceding and following election day.  Ohio had a provisional voting rate this year of approximately 3.2% while Missouri's rate was 0.2%.  Part of the difference could be accounted for by the fact that Missouri doesn't allow provisional ballots to be used on election day to change the voter's address.  Address changes in Missouri have to be made prior to election day.  In Ohio, provisional ballots have been used since the early 90's--long before HAVA--to allow voters to change their address on election day, but it is unclear what proportion of today's provisional voters fall into this category.  Many panelists and commenters pressed for meaningful data to be gathered and reported by Ohio officials so that all interested parties can base their election policy debate on sound facts instead of emotions and anecdotes.  While the use of provisional ballots to change an address is seen by some as an accomodation to voters, these provisional ballots can get caught up in unforeseen disputes such as whether the formal requirements for completing the ballot envelope have been satisfied.  Voters can get tripped up by choosing to take advantage of a voting option that they may not realize will decrease the likelihood of their ballot being counted.  EL@M has been monitoring progress in the lawsuit over ballot envelope formalities in Ohio's Franklin County.  See the Skaggs case page here.  The Ohio Supreme Court has not yet issued a decision.

Commentary

Donald B. Tobin

FAQ on social welfare organizations

Donald B. Tobin

The Frank E. and Virginia H. Bazler Designated Professor in Business Law and a senior fellow at Election Law @ Moritz explains the nuances of social welfare organizations and federal regulations related to them.

more commentary...

In the News

Donald B. Tobin

How Did The IRS Get The Job Of Vetting Political Activity?

Professor Donald Tobin was interviewed by the Boston NPR station on its show Here & Now about the Internal Revenue Service's investigation into groups classified as social welfare organizations (marked by the 501(c)(4) tax classification). The IRS was in search of groups that are not focusing primarly on the social welfare of the country, but have a strong political advocacy facet. Political advocacy groups might want to be classified as 501(c)(4) organizations because under that classification they do not have to disclose their donors.

"The key is if you are going to be engaged in candidate-type advocacy, and if you're going to intervene in elections and engage in election advocacy, we want disclosure of who your donors are," Tobin said.

“What groups are trying to do here is avoid having to disclose,” Tobin continued. “By earning the classification of social welfare, they’re avoiding the campaign disclosure that’s required for political organizations. So that’s really the underpinning of why we have this mess of the IRS having to get in and investigate and figure out whether an organization is political or not.”

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Ohio Secretary of State Releases Report on Voter Fraud

Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted released a report today on voter fraud in Ohio during the 2012 general election. In a press release, Husted stated that while voter fraud does exist in Ohio, "it is not an epidemic." According to the report, 135 voter fraud cases have been referred to law enforcement for possible prosecution. Twenty of these cases involved voters attempting to vote in Ohio and another state. The report shows that 115 cases were referred to local Ohio county prosecutors. According to Husted as quoted in the Columbus Dispatch, most of these cases involved voters attempting to vote twice within the state, and in a "majority" of instances, only one vote was counted.

more info & analysis...