As you may well know, the Ohio voter identification law has been under challenge in Ohio, with U.S. Dist. Judge Algernon Marbley issuing a preliminary injunction as far as requiring voter identification for absentee ballots for about, oh, a day, and then it being reinstated by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. Today was the hearing for a decision on what would be done with the law. The hearing was undertaken with the serious concern that if the law was thrown out, the 6th Circuit would reverse the decision and we would be right back where we started.
The good news is: A settlement has been reached!
I was selected by the attorneys challenging the voter ID law to testify in federal court today about why the new Ohio voter ID law, which requires current and valid photo identification or one of a host of other possible documents, and has been interpreted differently by practically every possible board of elections in the state. My problem stems from being a law student (who, ironically, did election law research last year related to voter ID) with an out-of-state driver's license, who lives in a building with two addresses, one of which is the one I am registered to vote at, and the other one of which is the one that appears on my rent bills.
The attorneys were on the phone with Judge Marbley until 11pm last night attempting to reach a settlement agreement between the attorneys challenging the law, the Attorney General's Office, and the Sec'y of State's Office. They negotiated some more between 8 and 10 this morning, and Judge Marbley intended to proceed with a hearing at 10am today if an agreement had not been reached. Apparently the parties were making progress, because this time was delayed until 3pm, then until 4pm, then until 5pm. The good news is that an agreement was finally reached at 7:45pm, without myself or any of the other eight or so witnesses testifying.
This is the best possible resolution.
Essentially, anyone with a social security number and no other form of ID may now vote provisionally, and those votes are guaranteed to be counted. Additionally, although I have not seen all of the settlement agreement (only some of it), I understand that it also clarifies what counts as "current, valid photo identification" and what constitutes an "other government document." This should prevent Boards of Elections from continuing to interpret the requirements differently from county to county.
Did the attorneys make major concessions? Yes.
However, this is the best possible resolution. Since it was an agreement, there is no danger of the Attorney General or Secretary of State appealing it to the 6th Circuit, who would undoubtedly reinstate the law, because two of the three judges are Bush appointees. How the law stands right now is how it will continue to stand until election day, unless the legislature calls an emergency session to amend it, which at least one member of the General Assembly has indicated that he intends to do.
Oddly enough, it was not Ken Blackwell's office that held up the settlement agreement for 5 hours, but Attorney General Jim Petro's office. We suspect they may have been waiting to see if all the witnesses would get fed up and leave, leaving the attorneys with no case. But, we stayed, even though we did not have the opportunity to testify.
I am pretty sure this was an entire day (10am-8pm) at the federal courthouse well spent.
I hate to hit and run, but I literally just got back, and have to head back out for league bowling night. I will be perfectly honest - I doubt I can answer very many of the questions you might have anyway. I did not see the final settlement agreement, and all I know is what Judge Marbley and the lawyers explained, which was quick and dirty.
Clarification: I am not a lawyer on this case, I'm just a witness.