Posted: October 27, 2006

Two Details of TRO in Ohio ID Case

An initial review of the text of Judge Marbley’s orders (now available here) indicates: 1. They appear to apply to in-person early voting at board of election offices, as well as to mailed-in absentee voting, although it is not altogether explicit on this point. 2. It is clear that these orders apply, not only to the counting of absentee ballots, but to the process for collecting ID information as well: “The Boards of Election shall also include correspondence with application forms for absentee ballots and with instructions that accompany the absentee ballots reflecting that the voters need not comply with the above-enjoined provisions.” This language appears in both the TRO, at page 5, and the court’s Order to county election boards, at pages 2-3. For reasons discussed previously, this provision of the orders raises the concern that, if these orders are vacated on appeal, voters who failed to provide any ID information in the interim will be disenfranchised as a result.

Edward B. Foley is Director of the Election Law @ Moritz program. His primary area of current research concerns the resolution of disputed elections. Having published several law journal articles on this topic, he is currently writing a book on the history of disputed elections in the United States. He is also serving as Reporter for the American Law Institute's new Election Law project. Professor Foley's "Free & Fair" is a collection of his writings that he has penned for Election Law @ Moritz. View Complete Profile