## Facts

- Ohio adopted election-law changes that reduced early in-person voting days and hours and eliminated “Golden Week,” a period allowing same-day registration and early in-person voting.
- Organizational and individual plaintiffs challenged the changes, alleging disproportionate adverse effects on minority and lower-income voters.
- Plaintiffs asserted claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and under the First and Fourteenth Amendments (including Equal Protection), seeking injunctive relief.
- After a bench trial, the district court found several changes unlawful under Section 2 and the Constitution and ordered relief restoring or expanding prior practices.
- State officials appealed; plaintiffs cross-appealed adverse portions of the judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the elimination of Golden Week and reductions in early in-person voting resulted in minority voters having less opportunity than other voters to participate in the political process, in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
2. Whether the challenged changes imposed unconstitutional burdens on the right to vote under the Anderson–Burdick balancing framework.
3. Whether disparate effects on minority and low-income voters established unconstitutional discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit largely reversed the district court and upheld Ohio’s revised early-voting scheme, including the elimination of Golden Week and the early-voting reductions.
- The court held Ohio’s changes did not violate Section 2 because, considering the electoral system as a whole, minority voters did not have less opportunity than other voters to participate.
- The court held the challenged rules imposed at most modest burdens and were justified by Ohio’s asserted election-administration interests under Anderson–Burdick.
- A partial dissent would have upheld substantial portions of the district court’s findings and remedies based on the record of disparate impact and contextual factors.

## Legal Principles

- Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act targets voting practices that, under the totality of circumstances, result in racial minorities having less opportunity than others to participate and elect representatives of their choice.
- Section 2 does not require a state to maintain the most permissive voting options it has previously offered; the inquiry is whether the current system yields unequal opportunity.
- Disparate usage of a voting method by a racial group, without more, does not establish a Section 2 violation when the method and reasonable alternatives are generally available to all voters.
- Under Anderson–Burdick, courts weigh the character and magnitude of voting burdens against the state’s interests; modest burdens generally require less exacting justification than severe burdens.
- States have substantial latitude to regulate election procedures to further interests such as orderly administration, reducing confusion, controlling costs, and protecting election integrity.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit concluded Ohio’s elimination of Golden Week and reductions in early in-person voting were lawful because they did not, in the context of Ohio’s overall election system, deny minority voters equal opportunity under Section 2 and imposed only modest, justified burdens under the constitutional balancing test.


Ohio Democratic Party v. Husted, 834 F.3d 620 (6th Cir. 2016)