## Facts

- Ohio political and labor organizations sued the Ohio Secretary of State over directives governing provisional ballots for the 2004 federal election.
- Ohio election law required voters to cast ballots in their assigned precinct; ballots cast in the wrong precinct were invalid and would not be counted.
- Plaintiffs contended the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) required counting provisional ballots cast anywhere within the voter’s “jurisdiction,” which they argued meant the county.
- The district court granted a preliminary injunction construing “jurisdiction” in HAVA’s provisional-ballot provision to mean county, requiring counting of provisional ballots cast within the county even if cast outside the voter’s assigned precinct.
- The Secretary of State appealed on an expedited basis.

## Issues

1. Whether HAVA § 302’s use of “jurisdiction” requires states to count provisional ballots cast outside a voter’s correct precinct so long as the ballot is cast within a larger jurisdiction (e.g., county).
2. Whether HAVA preempts Ohio’s precinct-based rule invalidating out-of-precinct ballots.
3. Whether the district court’s preliminary injunction properly ordered compliance with HAVA’s provisional-ballot procedures.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit partially affirmed and partially reversed the preliminary injunction.
- The court held HAVA does not require Ohio to count provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct when state law deems such ballots invalid for that reason.
- The court affirmed portions of the injunction requiring Ohio to comply with HAVA’s procedural requirements for offering provisional ballots and providing required information and verification mechanisms.

## Legal Principles

- HAVA § 302 establishes minimum procedural protections ensuring that an individual who claims to be registered and eligible must be permitted to cast a provisional ballot subject to later eligibility determination.
- HAVA does not federalize substantive ballot-validity rules or displace state authority to require precinct-based voting as a condition of having a ballot counted.
- Ambiguous statutory language will not be read to effect a major change in traditional state election administration absent clear congressional direction.
- A court may order election officials to implement HAVA’s provisional-ballot procedures while allowing continued enforcement of state rules that determine whether a ballot is legally counted.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit treated the dispute as statutory interpretation and concluded that HAVA guarantees access to provisional ballots and related procedures, but it does not require states to count out-of-precinct provisional ballots that are invalid under state precinct-based election rules.


Sandusky Cnty. Democratic Party v. Blackwell, 387 F.3d 565 (6th Cir. 2004)