## Facts

- In late October 2004, days before the November 2 presidential election, thousands of Ohio voters faced pre-election challenges to their eligibility.
- The challenges were reportedly initiated after nonforwardable partisan mailings to newly registered voters were returned as undeliverable, prompting allegations that the voters were registered at incorrect precinct addresses.
- Plaintiffs (individual voters and a political party) sued the Ohio Secretary of State and multiple county boards of elections, asserting the planned challenge-hearing process would unlawfully burden or prevent eligible voters from casting regular ballots.
- Plaintiff Amy Miller alleged her registration was challenged on the returned-mail basis, and she had not received notice of a scheduled hearing; she also stated she could not attend the hearing set shortly before the election.
- County boards scheduled challenge hearings across several counties for October 27–30, leaving little time for challenged voters to receive notice, prepare, and appear.
- Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, and moved for an emergency temporary restraining order (TRO) under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (due process).
- Two individuals (Kevin Craft and Greg Lawson) moved to intervene.

## Issues

1. Whether the planned mass, residency-based voter challenges—triggered by returned nonforwardable mailings—likely violated the NVRA’s limits on improper or systematic removal/burdening of registered voters.
2. Whether the timing and procedures for the pre-election challenge hearings provided constitutionally adequate notice and opportunity to be heard under the Fourteenth Amendment.
3. Whether the TRO factors (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of harms, and public interest) justified emergency injunctive relief halting the challenge-hearing process.

## Decision

- The court granted the motion to intervene.
- The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO.
- The TRO restrained defendants from proceeding with or enforcing the planned pre-election challenge hearings and related challenge-based actions that could prevent challenged voters from casting regular ballots under the disputed procedures.

## Legal Principles

- The NVRA provides a private right of action to enforce federal limits on how states may remove voters from registration rolls, including protections against improper, systematic, or discriminatory practices affecting registered voters close to a federal election.
- Due process requires notice reasonably calculated to inform affected individuals of proceedings impacting protected interests, and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before deprivation; compressed schedules and inadequate notice are constitutionally suspect when the consequence is loss of the franchise.
- Loss or substantial burden of the right to vote constitutes irreparable harm because it cannot be remedied after an election occurs.
- In election cases, the balance of equities and public interest favor preserving lawful access to the ballot when challenged procedures risk large-scale disenfranchisement and appear inconsistent with federal statutory and constitutional requirements.

## Conclusion

The court issued emergency injunctive relief blocking last-minute, large-scale voter-registration challenge hearings, finding plaintiffs showed sufficient likelihood of success under the NVRA and due process and that preventing imminent disenfranchisement outweighed administrative interests in proceeding under the challenged timetable.


Miller v. Blackwell, 348 F. Supp. 2d 916 (S.D. Ohio 2004)