OHIO — Ohio is seeing more opposition to part of its voting laws. The Ohio Capital Journal reports attorney generals for six states and Washington, D.C. have filed an amicus brief for a lawsuit challenging the law. The brief focuses on how the law affects those with disabilities.

What You Need To Know

  • Case Western Reserve University law professor Sharona Hoffman says it is up to the judge to decide how much weight to give an amicus brief

  • The 2022 law requires Ohioans to present a photo ID to vote and only specific relatives or postal worker can return or possess another's absentee ballot

  • Hoffman added it’s possible that in this case, there will be a temporary restraining order because the full litigation probably will not be resolved by November

  • Ohio is not alone in this restriction, but the states argue Ohio does not provide flexibility in accessing the ballot box

Case Western Reserve University law professor Sharona Hoffman says It is up to the judge to decide how much weight to give an amicus brief, but that it’s significant that a number of attorney generals who are not from Ohio felt strongly enough about this issue to file such a brief.

The 2022 law requires Ohioans to present a photo ID to vote and only specific relatives or postal worker can return or possess another’s absentee ballot.

Some people not included in the list of those allowed to handle ballots include a voter’s grandchildren, cousins or caregivers.

Hoffman added it’s possible that in this case, there will be a temporary restraining order because the full litigation probably will not be resolved by November.

“And whether or not it’s because of this kind of a brief remains to be seen.” Hoffman said. “That’s again is up to the judge. To decide how much weight to give it. But I think a judge would take seriously the fact that people of such high stature from other states took the trouble to file this brief.”

Ohio is not alone in this restriction, but the states argue Ohio does not provide flexibility in accessing the ballot box.

Hoffman said the Americans with Disabilities Act requires that people with disabilities be reasonably accommodated so that they can enjoy the benefits and services that everyone else gets to enjoy.

“Having restrictions on who can help them vote is a significant problem and certainly a violation of the ADA.” Hoffman said. “The law seems to assume that everybody has close family around that everybody has a spouse or parents or children or siblings that live nearby, and that is absolutely not the case. A lot of people have to rely on caregivers, such as one of the plaintiffs. A lot of people rely on friends or more distant relatives, such as cousins. It’s going to be a big problem if those people cannot help the individual with a disability vote. I have to say that my husband has Parkinson’s disease. He can still vote on his own, but that’s not always the case. So this case definitely hits close to home.”