Today a settlement was announced in the A. Philip Randolph Institute (APRI) v. LaRose case regarding the inactive voter confirmation notices sent prior to 2016 as part of the Supplemental process of general voter list maintenance.
The settlement continues a practice begun during Secretary of State Husted’s administration of allowing persons whose registrations were cancelled through the supplemental process to vote a provisional ballot, provided that provisional ballot reflects the person’s residence address is within the same precinct and county as where their cancelled registration originated. The state agreed to extend the practice begun by Secretary Husted through December 31, 2022 for persons whose registrations were cancelled between 2011 and 2019 via the supplemental process.
“This case has loomed over our election system for far too long, and its settlement is a win for Ohio voters," said LaRose. "With this matter now behind us, we can work to modernize our voter registration system so we can run the more secure, accurate and fair elections that all Ohioans deserve.”
On June 11, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Husted v. APRI that the supplemental process used as a part of Ohio’s voter list maintenance program did not violate federal National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (“NVRA”). After the Court’s ruling, the case returned to the federal trial court to resolve the remaining issue in the case – whether confirmation notices sent to inactive voters between 2007 and 2015 complied with the notice provisions of the NVRA. The Secretary of State’s office has consistently maintained in court that these older confirmation notices comply with the NVRA’s notice provisions in all respects. Secretary LaRose determined that it made little sense to continue to spend taxpayer resources litigating the legality of a form of notice that is not used anymore. Thus, the Secretary and the Plaintiffs engaged in settlement negotiations to resolve the case and reached agreement. The Secretary of State was represented in this case by Attorney General Dave Yost.