Ohio’s approach to maintaining its voter rolls has come under scrutiny as Secretary of State Frank LaRose defends his decision to remove nearly 160,000 names. LaRose asserts that these actions are crucial for maintaining “election integrity,” yet watchdog groups argue that Ohio’s procedures for purging voters are flawed, potentially affecting eligible voters.
According to LaRose, cases of fraudulent voting in Ohio are exceedingly rare. His office identified a mere 0.0005% “potentially illegal” voting during the last presidential election. Despite these low numbers, LaRose maintains that stringent voter roll purges are necessary.
While maintaining voter lists is standard practice for election officials, some states, including Ohio, have been noted for their aggressive purging methods. A report by the American Bar Association in 2020 highlighted that such practices disproportionately affect minority voters, who, statistically, are more likely to be removed from the rolls.
A study of 10 states conducted last year identified Ohio as having particularly concerning voter removal practices. This study, led by Dēmos, a think tank focused on voting rights and economic justice, criticized Ohio’s approach, stating that it creates unnecessary hurdles for voters to remain registered.
Dēmos, which has previously contested LaRose’s methods, pointed out Ohio’s extensive removal practices, including purging based on inactivity, without adequate notice or a robust process for contesting removal. The group stated, “At nearly every turn, the state makes it hard for voters to stay on the registration rolls.”
Roni Druks, senior counsel at Dēmos, differentiates between routine list maintenance and voter purges. She explained that purges, such as those in Ohio, “essentially result in the removal of otherwise qualified voters from the state voter rolls.”
Ohio’s “use it or lose it” practice, where voters are removed for not participating in elections, has been particularly controversial. The American Bar Association described this approach as potentially unconstitutional, as it penalizes non-voting without legal basis. Druks emphasized, “Not voting isn’t a disqualification. Being apathetic about our political process is not a voter disqualification.”
In 2019, an attempt by LaRose’s office to clean up voter lists was found to be flawed, with errors impacting about 40,000 eligible voters, as reported by the New York Times. The ABA’s 2020 report linked failure to vote regularly with lower socioeconomic status and minority demographics, groups that often face challenges in maintaining their voter registration.
There has been no response from LaRose’s office regarding these concerns. The discussions around voter purges in Ohio continue to highlight the tension between ensuring election integrity and safeguarding voter rights, particularly for minority communities.
—
Read More Kitchen Table News
