## Facts

- Ohio voters whose eligibility was questioned could cast provisional ballots, but state law required voters to appear in the correct precinct and complete an affirmation with specified identifying information.
- Ohio rejected provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct even when cast at the correct polling location housing multiple precincts.
- Ohio also rejected provisional ballots when the voter’s affirmation form was incomplete or defective.
- Ballots were rejected even when the error resulted from poll-worker mistakes, including directing voters to the wrong precinct table or failing to provide correct instructions for completing the affirmation.
- Homeless, low-income, and other vulnerable voters alleged these practices caused eligible voters to be disenfranchised due to government error, violating Due Process and Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Shortly before the 2012 general election, the district court issued a preliminary injunction requiring Ohio to count (1) wrong-precinct provisional ballots cast at the correct polling location and (2) provisional ballots with defective affirmations, when the noncompliance was attributable to poll-worker error, unless the State proved the voter received correct instructions and nonetheless failed to comply.
- The Ohio Secretary of State appealed the injunction as to defective affirmations; the State of Ohio appealed as to wrong-precinct ballots.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion in preliminarily enjoining Ohio from rejecting wrong-precinct provisional ballots cast at the correct polling location when poll-worker error caused the precinct mistake.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion in preliminarily enjoining Ohio from rejecting provisional ballots with defective affirmations when the defects were caused by poll-worker error.
3. Whether the preliminary injunction properly applied the equitable factors, including election-timing concerns reflected in *Purcell v. Gonzalez*.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion by requiring Ohio to count wrong-precinct provisional ballots cast at the correct polling location when poll-worker error caused the miscast.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion by requiring Ohio to count provisional ballots with defective affirmations when poll-worker error caused the defect.
- The court approved the injunction’s approach that such ballots must be counted unless the State proves the voter received proper instructions and failed to follow them.
- The court concluded the limited, targeted relief was justified despite proximity to the election.

## Legal Principles

- Automatic rejection of ballots cast by eligible voters can violate Due Process and Equal Protection when noncompliance with technical voting requirements is caused by poll-worker error.
- In evaluating election-related preliminary injunctions, courts apply the traditional four-factor test (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of harms, public interest) while accounting for timing-related concerns about disrupting election administration.
- Loss of the right to vote constitutes irreparable harm supporting preliminary relief.
- Where the dispute concerns whether voter noncompliance was caused by poll-worker conduct, a court may place the burden on the State to show the voter received correct instructions and nonetheless failed to comply.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction preventing Ohio from rejecting certain provisional ballots when poll-worker error caused wrong-precinct voting at the correct polling location or caused defects in provisional-ballot affirmations, requiring the State to count those ballots unless it proved the voter was properly instructed and failed to follow instructions.


Ne. Ohio Coal. for the Homeless v. Husted, 696 F.3d 580 (6th Cir. 2012)