Jon Husted rightly worries about the voter confusion likely to result from holding a hotly contested presidential race in Ohio at the same time a referendum rages on an elections bill passed last summer. It’s not hard to see how bitter arguments over the complex provisions in the bill, affecting absentee balloting, provisional voting and the responsibilities of poll workers, among other things, could lead voters astray in November.
The secretary of state this week offered a bold, but sensible, plan. He is asking his fellow Republicans in charge of the legislature to repeal the measure they pushed through, strong majorities overriding legitimate concerns of minority Democrats. Husted wants the legislature to start over, crafting a new bill after the November voting is over. “No more mid-stream changes,” he said, alluding to last-minute adjustments to the presidential primary in Ohio, now set for March 6.
The request, made at a meeting of elections officials in Columbus, partly reflects partisan disagreements that cropped up this past November over mailing absentee ballot applications and in-person absentee voting, increasingly popular in both urban and rural areas. Although the successful petition drive that put the elections bill on the ballot halted the legislation from taking effect, a high-profile referendum campaign certainly would trigger another round of confusion.
Husted’s plan not only would end the referendum, but also would allow Republicans to reconsider a bill much in need of repairs. As with other measures (most notably, Senate Bill 5, on collective bargaining for public employees), House Bill 194 gained a sharp partisan edge. If it started with legitimate efforts to prepare for a smooth presidential election, it ended up going too far, enraging Democrats, unions and other groups who correctly raised concerns over ballot access.
Their biggest concern was a sharp reduction in the time available for in-person absentee voting, from 35 days before an election to 10. The elections bill contained other provisions that would affect voter access. Poll workers, for example, would be barred from assisting voters in finding the correct precinct, a necessity for votes to count.
In pushing for such measures, and an unsuccessful effort to impose a photo ID requirement, Republicans placed their focus on rooting out voter fraud, even though it is virtually nonexistent. What they ended up doing was eroding confidence in an already battered elections system.
Husted has offered a way forward that would take down the temperature of harshly partisan arguments, setting the stage for a more thoughtful, bipartisan approach to improving elections in this battleground state, among the handful that often decide the final result.
