The Brennan Center for Justice and the Ohio Organizing Collaborative have been pressing Ohio’s Secretary of State since July to confirm that voters are not being improperly removed from the voter rolls after they update their address, and are now preparing a lawsuit against Secretary Frank LaRose if his office does not respond by the end of Wednesday.
They argue that Ohio’s practice appears to violate federal law and that the state’s new regulations appear to confirm those concerns.
Where laws do not agree
The watchdog groups’ concerns center on provisions of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, colloquially known as the Motor Voter Law. The law not only requires state motor vehicle departments to provide voter registration forms, but also sets guidelines for what happens when a resident changes their address.
Section 5 requires that any address update submitted to the BMV must also serve as a notification to update voter registration, which should occur automatically unless the person specifically opts out of this process.
“In other words,” the organizations wrote to the Secretary in July, “the NVRA places the responsibility for updating voter registration records on state officials.”
In the same letter, they cite an exchange of letters between the Secretary of State’s office and state Rep. Elliot Forhan (D-South Euclid) in which LaRose indicated that at least some of the people who were flagged had moved and updated their driver’s licenses but had not updated their registration.
The Brennan Center and the Ohio Organizing Collaborative argue that this represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the responsibilities of state agencies under the Motor Voter Act.
“Ohio cannot require registered voters who report a change of address to the BMV to take additional steps to update their registration, such as completing additional forms or canceling registration at their old address,” their letter states.
One notable issue, argued Brennan Center attorney Patrick Berry, is Ohio’s DATA Act. The measure was a priority for LaRose at the start of the current legislative session and was included as a budget proposal last summer. Its primary purpose was to bring Ohio’s 88 election boards to a common position on how to maintain their voter rolls, but it also contains a provision that could hinder updates under the NVRA.
The law states that registration updates can only be made when a voter files a name or address change, but it also prohibits the use of information received in the normal course of business from state agencies to update a voter’s registration address.
Berry worries that this presents a conundrum. Will a change of address form be shared between agencies to keep records up to date, as required by the Motor Voter Act? Or will this information be treated as information collected in the normal course of business that cannot be used to update registrations?
Because state laws may have conflicting goals, the organizations warned the Secretary that “a dismissal on the grounds that (voters) have not canceled their registration at their old address would be a violation of the NVRA.”
Additionally, Berry raised concerns about the BMV change of address form. While it advises applicants that the information they submit will be used for “voter registration purposes,” it is presented as a warning rather than a service. “By signing this form,” it states, “you consent to the publication of the information provided.”
“We believe this wording could be confusing and subject to different interpretations,” Berry argued.
Following this notification, the form includes a field where applicants can object to the sharing of their information, but also a second signature field. In a follow-up letter to the minister on Monday, the organizations criticized this wording as “misleading on its face” because it appears to present the sharing of information as something to which the voter must “voluntarily consent.”
Are the right people being tagged?
After an initial review of voters included in the exclusion process, Berry noted that they found “a handful” who received letters confirming their address long before state officials could actually exclude them. That’s not necessarily a problem, but he explained that the Motor Voter Act sets out the procedures for excluding a voter after they move.
“Specifically,” he said, “an election official cannot disqualify a voter based on a change of address unless the voter certifies in writing that he or she has moved, or the voter does not respond to the notice sent to him or her and then does not vote in the next two federal elections.”
Berry described finding voters in Cuyahoga County who were scheduled for removal but had received confirmation letters from 2021, 2022 or 2024, making them too recent to remove from their voter rolls unless the voter responds and confirms their move.
After the deletions were made in late July, Berry said one of the identified voters had been deleted, but the rest were still on the voter rolls. The deleted voter may have returned a confirmation notice, but that is not clear.
“And we just want to make sure you know that the removal of a voter was done properly and in accordance with the National Voter Registration Act,” Berry said.
He noted that they also wanted to know whether voters in similar situations would also be protected.
“As chief election official,” Berry said, “Secretary LaRose must ensure that appropriate state agencies and election officials, including the Bureau of Motor Vehicles and county election boards, comply with the National Voter Registration Act.”
“And we hope that he will respond to our letter by tomorrow and assure us that this will be the case,” he added. “But if we do not hear from the Secretary, we will not hesitate to take legal action to protect the rights of Ohio voters.”
Follow OCJ Reporter Nick Evans on Twitter.
Get the morning’s headlines straight to your inbox
