SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
"Tens of thousands of Ohio voters have relied on Golden Week during the past two presidential elections," the plaintiffs argued. (Photo: Kristin Wolff/flickr/cc)
Supreme Court Refuses to Reinstate 'Golden Week' Voting Rights in Ohio
Democrats have argued that doing away with a critical early voting period violated constitutional rights of minority voters
Sep 13, 2016
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld Ohio's restrictive voting laws, meaning people will not be able to register and cast a ballot on the same day at the start of the state's early voting period.
The court let stand a previous ruling by a federal appeals court, which in August rejected a challenge by Ohio Democrats that sought to reinstate the window of time, known as the "Golden Week," that was first implemented in 2004 but abolished in 2013 by a Republican legislature.
The Democrats have continually argued that doing away with that rule violated constitutional rights of minority voters, who are more likely to make use of the early period.
"Tens of thousands of Ohio voters have relied on Golden Week during the past two presidential elections, and African Americans have done so at far higher rates than other voters," they told the high court.
The state countered that the Golden Week placed a burden on state and local officials, and noted that it had added an extra Sunday to the existing time period of early voting as part of a separate lawsuit settlement with the NAACP, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and other groups.
Voting hours in Ohio were scrutinized for their disproportionate impact on black residents in the 2004 election, when many people reported waiting in lines for up to 12 hours to cast a ballot. The state then implemented its 35-day early voting period, the first week of which became known as the Golden Week because it allowed people to meet the 30-day deadline for registration and cast their ballots at the same time.
Ohio Democratic Party chairman David Pepper said Tuesday, "Ohio Republicans can keep trying to make it harder for people to vote, but we will continue to fight them at every turn."
SCOTUSblog reported that the Supreme Court allowed the previous ruling to stand "without any noted dissent."
The case is Ohio Democratic Party v. Husted (pdf). It is one of many voting rights cases underway ahead of the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld Ohio's restrictive voting laws, meaning people will not be able to register and cast a ballot on the same day at the start of the state's early voting period.
The court let stand a previous ruling by a federal appeals court, which in August rejected a challenge by Ohio Democrats that sought to reinstate the window of time, known as the "Golden Week," that was first implemented in 2004 but abolished in 2013 by a Republican legislature.
The Democrats have continually argued that doing away with that rule violated constitutional rights of minority voters, who are more likely to make use of the early period.
"Tens of thousands of Ohio voters have relied on Golden Week during the past two presidential elections, and African Americans have done so at far higher rates than other voters," they told the high court.
The state countered that the Golden Week placed a burden on state and local officials, and noted that it had added an extra Sunday to the existing time period of early voting as part of a separate lawsuit settlement with the NAACP, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and other groups.
Voting hours in Ohio were scrutinized for their disproportionate impact on black residents in the 2004 election, when many people reported waiting in lines for up to 12 hours to cast a ballot. The state then implemented its 35-day early voting period, the first week of which became known as the Golden Week because it allowed people to meet the 30-day deadline for registration and cast their ballots at the same time.
Ohio Democratic Party chairman David Pepper said Tuesday, "Ohio Republicans can keep trying to make it harder for people to vote, but we will continue to fight them at every turn."
SCOTUSblog reported that the Supreme Court allowed the previous ruling to stand "without any noted dissent."
The case is Ohio Democratic Party v. Husted (pdf). It is one of many voting rights cases underway ahead of the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld Ohio's restrictive voting laws, meaning people will not be able to register and cast a ballot on the same day at the start of the state's early voting period.
The court let stand a previous ruling by a federal appeals court, which in August rejected a challenge by Ohio Democrats that sought to reinstate the window of time, known as the "Golden Week," that was first implemented in 2004 but abolished in 2013 by a Republican legislature.
The Democrats have continually argued that doing away with that rule violated constitutional rights of minority voters, who are more likely to make use of the early period.
"Tens of thousands of Ohio voters have relied on Golden Week during the past two presidential elections, and African Americans have done so at far higher rates than other voters," they told the high court.
The state countered that the Golden Week placed a burden on state and local officials, and noted that it had added an extra Sunday to the existing time period of early voting as part of a separate lawsuit settlement with the NAACP, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and other groups.
Voting hours in Ohio were scrutinized for their disproportionate impact on black residents in the 2004 election, when many people reported waiting in lines for up to 12 hours to cast a ballot. The state then implemented its 35-day early voting period, the first week of which became known as the Golden Week because it allowed people to meet the 30-day deadline for registration and cast their ballots at the same time.
Ohio Democratic Party chairman David Pepper said Tuesday, "Ohio Republicans can keep trying to make it harder for people to vote, but we will continue to fight them at every turn."
SCOTUSblog reported that the Supreme Court allowed the previous ruling to stand "without any noted dissent."
The case is Ohio Democratic Party v. Husted (pdf). It is one of many voting rights cases underway ahead of the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.