IE 11 Not Supported

For optimal browsing, we recommend Chrome, Firefox or Safari browsers.

Ohio Court Shoots Down Email Absentee Ballot Requests

The dispute revolved around the process through which would-be voters ask county boards of elections to send them absentee ballots. It would not have affected return delivery of the absentee ballots themselves.

mailing ballots
Shutterstock/Anna Hoychuk
(TNS) — A state appeals court has sided with President Trump's re-election campaign and Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose in overturning a ruling that would have allowed voters to request absentee ballots via e-mail.

While the Columbus-based 10th District Court of Appeals on Tuesday found nothing in state law that prevents the Republican secretary of state from issuing such a directive to county boards of elections, it also found nothing that mandates electronic delivery either.

It found that Mr. LaRose did not act unreasonably in ruling on an appeal that was also backed by the National Republican Congressional Committee.

“(State law) is silent on electronic methods of delivery altogether,” wrote Judge William Klatt, a Republican.

“This silence does not address the duty of the secretary, in overseeing the fair and uniform administration of elections, to establish the particular methods of application delivery that county boards should accommodate.”

The decision overturns a Franklin County Common Pleas Court ruling from Sept. 11 that sided with the Ohio Democratic Party in trying to prevent Mr. LaRose from enforcing his directive that absentee ballots may only be accepted only by mail or in person.

“...the secretary's decision to continue the long-established practice of mail and in-person return of these applications, instead of jeopardizing the security and administration of the election by eliminating a new procedure to allow electronic return of the applications, cannot be deemed unreasonable,” Judge Klatt wrote.

He wrote that Democrats failed to show any evidence that these practices had prevented or would prevent someone from voting.

The dispute revolved around the process through which would-be voters ask county boards of elections to send them absentee ballots. It would not have affected return delivery of the absentee ballots themselves.

Judge Frederick Nelson, also a Republican, agreed with Judge Klatt's reasoning. While ultimately agreeing with the majority in reversing the lower court ruling, the panel's sole Democrat, Judge Julia Dorrian, disagreed that Mr. LaRose acted reasonably.

She pointed to the unusual situation posed by the coronavirus threat that prompted Gov. Mike DeWine's health director in March to close primary election polling places just hours before they were to open out of concern of virus spread among poll workers and voters. That problem is compounded by concerns about U.S. Mail delivery service.

“If the procedures for application delivery and return of absentee ballots are not adequate to meet the increased demand, voters may be faced with the dilemma of either endangering their own or others' health by voting in person or not having their vote counted either because their application for absentee ballot of the ballot itself was not delivered in a timely manner,” she wrote.

Given that he is not precluded from doing so, state Democratic Chairman David Pepper called on Mr. LaRose to still allow online acceptance of applications.

“He can now finally stop pretending the law is an obstacle here and start doing what so many other states have been doing without problems,” he said.

LaRose spokesman Maggie Sheehan applauded the court's determination that concerns over cybersecurity were to great to make such a change so close to an election that will begin with early voting on Tuesday.

“Ohioans are showing incredible confidence in how we’re running this election by requesting absentee ballots at a record pace,” she said. “Our mission is to reward that confidence by running a safe, secure, and accessible election.”

©2020 The Blade, Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.