IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION THE NORTHEAST OHIO COALITION : FOR THE HOMELESS, et al., : Case No. 2:06-cv-896 : Plaintiffs, : : Judge Marbley v. : : Magistrate Judge Kemp JON HUSTED, in his official capacity as : Secretary of State of Ohio, : : Defendant, : : and : : THE STATE OF OHIO, : : Intervenor-Defendant. :
JOINT OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO MODIFY THE APRIL 19, 2010
CONSENT DECREE (Doc. 288) BY DEFENDANT SECRETARY OF STATE JON HUSTED AND INTERVENOR-DEFENDANT STATE OF OHIO
Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 306 Filed: 07/06/12 Page: 1 of 16 PAGEID #: 10359
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs ask this Court to expand the consent decree, to specify new procedures for the
casting of provisional ballots, and to require the counting of provisional ballots that are invalid
under state law. As both the Secretary and the State of Ohio have argued previously (Docs. 269
& 270), the consent decree is invalid and unenforceable because it conflicts with state law. As
such, there is nothing to modify or expand.
But even if the Court were to conclude that the decree is valid, plaintiffs’ motion is still
improper. First, Rule 60(b) does not authorize it. The rule permits courts to “relieve a party . . .
from a final judgment.” But “a court may not use Rule 60(b) to grant affirmative relief in
addition to the relief contained in the prior order or judgment.” Moore’s Federal Practice (Civil)
§ 60.25 (2012). Because plaintiffs’ motion seeks precisely that—an award of relief in addition to
what the consent decree already provides—it is improper under Rule 60(b).
Second, a district court lacks equitable authority to expand a consent decree where (1) the
defendant withholds its consent, and (2) no constitutional violation has been adjudicated. Here,
the Secretary and the State of Ohio object to any enlargement of the decree. And this Court
never adjudicated the merits of plaintiffs’ constitutional claims, nor did the Secretary or the State
admit to them. “In the absence of an adjudication or admission of constitutional violation, the
district court’s authority to impose additional obligations on a defendant is constrained by the
terms of agreement entered by the parties to the consent decree.” Lorain NAACP v. Lorain Bd.
of Educ., 979 F.2d 1141, 1153 (6th Cir. 1992).
In truth, plaintiffs are seeking (in the guise of a modification motion) a judicial
determination that Ohio’s provisional-ballots procedures are unconstitutional. The consent
decree must be strengthened, plaintiffs say, because Ohio’s “current provisional ballot system
Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 306 Filed: 07/06/12 Page: 2 of 16 PAGEID #: 10360
arbitrarily disenfranchises voters covered by the Decree,” “violates the Equal Protection Clause,”
and “violates the guarantees of substantive due process.” Plts’ Mot. for Mod. at 3 (Doc. 288).
But as they have acknowledged elsewhere, “Plaintiffs in this case gave up their constitutional
claims two years ago.” Plts’ Mot. to Enjoin State Court Proceedings at 7 (Doc. 246). So long as
the decree remains in place, plaintiffs may not pursue the very thing they surrendered to obtain
the decree—the opportunity to litigate their claims.
Even if plaintiffs could overcome these threshold defects, their modification request is
flawed for an additional reason: Plaintiffs lack standing to secure additional relief in this case.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Plaintiffs initiated this litigation in 2006, challenging Ohio’s voter-identification and
provisional-ballot laws. After extensive pretrial litigation, the parties at the time entered into a
consent decree in 2010 regulating the counting of provisional ballots cast with the last four digits
of the voter’s social security. The decree requires the Secretary to instruct the county election
boards to accept (1) provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct, but in the correct polling
place, for reasons attributable to poll-worker error; and (2) provisional ballots where the voter
did not complete or sign the provisional ballot application for reasons attributable to poll-worker
error. The parties further agreed that “[t]his Decree . . . shall in no way constitute an
adjudication or finding on the merits.” Consent Decree at 2 (Doc. 210).
Two years after the decree’s entry, members of the General Assembly filed suit in the
Ohio Supreme Court, asserting that the consent decree conflicted with state law. Upon plaintiffs’
motion, this Court enjoined those proceedings and directed the parties to submit briefs on the
validity of the decree. The Secretary and the State argued that the consent decree was invalid
Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 306 Filed: 07/06/12 Page: 3 of 16 PAGEID #: 10361
because it required them to disobey Ohio law without any finding of an underlying constitutional
defect.
While the Court considered the consent decree’s validity, plaintiffs filed a motion to
expand the decree under Rule 60(b)(5). A separate coalition of labor unions also filed a new
challenge to Ohio’s provisional-ballot laws. See Service Employees Int’l Union v. Husted, No.
12-cv-562 (S.D Ohio). Whereas the NEOCH case implicates a “distinct category of provisional
voters” (specifically, indigent citizens who vote using their Social Security numbers because
they lack personal identification), the SEIU case challenges Ohio’s provisional-ballot rules “with
respect to all Ohio provisional ballot voters.” Plts’ Notice of Related Cases at 2-3 (Doc. 301).
At plaintiffs’ urging, the Court related the two cases. It also consolidated the NEOCH
plaintiffs’ motion to modify the consent decree with the SEIU plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary
injunction. The parties will appear for a hearing on July 30, 2012.
ARGUMENT
Plaintiffs’ request to modify the consent decree runs into three hurdles. First, the motion
is improper under Rule 60(b). Second, this Court lacks equitable authority to expand the consent
decree over the defendants’ objections. Third, plaintiffs have no standing.
A. The Court cannot use Rule 60(b) to award additional relief to plaintiffs under the consent decree.
According to plaintiffs, “a party to a consent decree may only seek to modify or vacate
the decree by means of a motion for relief from final judgment under Rule 60.”1 Plts’ Reply on
Validity at 5 (Doc. 281). Invoking that rule, plaintiffs ask this Court to “strengthen” the
1 Defendants do not believe that Rule 60(b) applies in this context. The Court has held that “the parties . . . did not intend the Decree to be final.” Order at 8 (Doc. 234). If that holding is correct, then no final order exists and Rule 60(b) does not apply. But given plaintiffs’ insistence that Rule 60(b) governs their motion for modification, defendants will brief the issue.
Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 306 Filed: 07/06/12 Page: 4 of 16 PAGEID #: 10362
provisions in the consent decree that regulate provisional-ballot counting. Plts’ Mot. for Mod. at
1 (Doc. 288).
Rule 60(b) does not authorize plaintiffs’ request. The rule permits district courts to
“relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment” for six enumerated reasons.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). But the rule contains “no comparable provision addressing a party’s
request for an increase in the burdens of a . . . judgment.” Lorain NAACP, 979 F.2d at 1153.
For that reason, federal courts uniformly recognize a distinction between modifying a
final judgment and expanding a final judgment: “Rule 60(b) . . . cannot be used to impose
additional affirmative relief.” United States v. $119,980, 680 F.2d 106, 107 (11th Cir. 1982); see
also Stronjnik v. Can Pay Mining Co., 321 Fed Appx. 671, 672 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[C]ourts may
not use Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to grant affirmative relief in addition
to the relief contained in the prior order or judgment.”); Adduono v. Wolrd Hockey Ass’n, 824
F.2d 617, 620 (8th Cir. 1987) (“Rule 60(b) . . . cannot be used to impose additional affirmative
relief.”); United States v. One 1961 Red Chevrolet Impala, 457 F.2d 1353, 1356 (5th Cir. 1972)
(“[S]uch further affirmative relief can not be sustained under Rule 60(b).”); Moore’s Federal
Practice (Civil) § 60.25 (2012) (“[A] court may not use Rule 60 to grant affirmative relief in
addition to the relief contained in the prior order or judgment.”).
This Court has adopted the same interpretation of Rule 60(b). In Brinkman v. Gilligan,
85 F. Supp. 2d 761 (S.D. Ohio 1999), Judge Rice denied a motion to enlarge a consent decree
between the NAACP, the Dayton Board of Education, and the State of Ohio: Because “the
request at issue would materially increase the burdens on the State Defendants . . . the Court
concludes that Rule 60(b)(5) does not serve as the basis for providing relief.” Id. at 776.
Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 306 Filed: 07/06/12 Page: 5 of 16 PAGEID #: 10363
Plaintiffs’ Rule 60(b)(5) motion is a not-so-veiled attempt to secure additional relief
against the defendants. They urge this Court (1) to mandate individual poll-worker affirmations
for every NEOCH voter; (2) to direct county election boards to verify that poll workers directed
the voter to the proper precinct; (3) to require the counting of provisional ballots cast in the
wrong polling location; and (4) to require the counting of provisional ballots with missing names
or signatures, irrespective of whether poll-worker error caused the omission.
These modifications would dramatically expand the consent decree beyond its original
moorings. Because plaintiffs cannot use Rule 60(b) to obtain relief beyond what is already
contained in that judgment, the Court should dismiss their motion.
B. The Court lacks equitable authority to expand the consent decree over the defendants’ objections.
There remains the question whether this Court has inherent equitable authority to
entertain plaintiffs’ request to expand the consent decree. It does not.
1. Where no adjudication or admission of a constitutional violation has occurred, a court may not enlarge a consent decree.
The consent decree, as currently styled, requires the Secretary and other election officials
to accept certain provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct or with incomplete information,
provided that a poll worker caused the error. Plaintiffs now seek to expand these provisions.
Here is the problem with that request: This Court never adjudicated the merits of
plaintiffs’ constitutional claims. To the contrary, the Court entered the decree without any
finding or admission that Ohio’s provisional-ballot procedures violate the Constitution. See
Consent Decree at 2 (Doc. 210).
The Sixth Circuit has held that “a district court may not, in the name of modification,
circumvent the express terms of a defendant party’s consent in the absence of an adjudicated or
Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 306 Filed: 07/06/12 Page: 6 of 16 PAGEID #: 10364
admitted violation of law.” Lorain NAACP, 979 F.2d at 1153; accord Fox v. Dep’t of Housing &
Urban Dev., 680 F.2d 315, 323 (3d Cir. 1982) (“[A] court may not impose additional duties upon
a defendant party to a consent decree without an adjudication or admission that the defendant
violated the plaintiffs’ legal rights.”). Because no adjudication of plaintiffs’ claims occurred
here, plaintiffs cannot seek—and this Court cannot order—an expansion of the consent decree
over the Secretary and the State’s objection.
The Sixth Circuit confronted this very issue in Lorain NAACP. A group of black and
Hispanic students sued the Lorain City School District and the Ohio State Board of Education,
citing racial segregation and discrimination in their school administration. 979 F.2d at 1143-44.
The parties entered a consent decree. Without any finding or admission of liability, the school
district agreed to balance the racial composition of its schools and faculty, and the State of Ohio
agreed to pay $1 million for implementation costs. Id. at 1144.
That financial contribution proved insufficient. As costs and salaries rose, school
officials struggled to maintain compliance with the consent decree’s provisions. Id. at 1146.
They asked the district court to modify the decree and enlarge the State of Ohio’s financial
contribution. Finding that “the parties had grossly understated the costs of desegregation,” the
district court increased the State’s payment to $9 million. Id. at 1147.
On appeal, the Sixth Circuit vacated the district court’s order. The court observed that
“there has been no judicial determination of the merits of plaintiffs’ claims and no finding of
constitutional violation by any of the defendants, including the State.” Id. at 1150. Rather, the
State “accepted limited liability through the entry of a consent decree.” Id. at 1151. The order
increasing the State’s payments, the Sixth Circuit explained, “st[ood] contrary to, and effectively
Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 306 Filed: 07/06/12 Page: 7 of 16 PAGEID #: 10365
eviscerate[d], the terms of the State’s consent from which the district court derived its authority
to enter the consent judgment.” Id. at 1153.
This case presents the same scenario. The Court entered the consent decree without any
adjudication or admission of liability. Plaintiffs now seek significant expansion of the consent
decree over the Secretary and the State’s objection. This Court must deny that request. “In the
absence of an adjudication or admission of constitutional violation, the district court’s authority
to impose additional obligations on a defendant is constrained by the terms of . . . the consent
decree.” Id.
2. Plaintiffs cite no contrary authority that permits expansion of a consent decree over a defendant’s objection.
Plaintiffs fail to highlight a single instance where a district court enlarged a consent
decree over a defendant’s objection. That omission speaks volumes.
Plaintiffs do offer numerous cases where the defendant requested or acceded to an
expansion of its consent-decree obligations. See Cleveland Firefighters v. City of Cleveland, 669
F.3d 737, 739 (6th Cir. 2012) (“The City . . . moved, on September 26, 2008, for an extension of
the [second consent decree’s] September 29, 2008 deadline.”); LULAC Dist. 19 v. City of
Boerne, 659 F.3d 421, 427 (5th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he city and LULAC filed a joint motion asking
the district court to reopen the case and enter a modified consent decree.”); Vanguards of
Cleveland v. City of Cleveland, 23 F.3d 1013, 1016 (6th Cir. 1994) (“In June 1992, the
Vanguards and the City entered into a proposed Stipulation and Order which recommended
modifications to the 1983 consent decree.”). This case is quite different—the defendants object
to the underlying validity of the consent decree as well as to any enlargement of the consent
decree.
Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 306 Filed: 07/06/12 Page: 8 of 16 PAGEID #: 10366
Plaintiffs also reference a case where the district court delayed a consent decree’s
expiration because it found that a defendant had fully ignored the decree’s provisions. See
Thompson v. United States HUD, 404 F.3d 821, 828 (6th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he court modified the
Decree because the Local Defendants had done almost nothing that they were required to do
under the Decree.”). But plaintiffs here do not seek to extend the existing decree past its April
2013 expiration. Rather, they urge this Court to modify the decree—and order additional
relief—against the Secretary and the State.
Finally, plaintiffs cite examples where a district court modified a consent decree to relax
a defendant’s duties in response to changed circumstances. See Stotts v. Memphis Fire Dep’t,
679 F.2d 541, 562 (6th Cir. 1982) (“[T]he court’s modification of the decree is simply an
exercise of its equity jurisdiction to temporarily relieve the hardship on the City which strict
compliance with the decrees would have caused.”) (emphasis added). Again, plaintiffs here do
not seek to relax the consent decree’s provisions; they seek to enlarge them and impose further
burdens on the Secretary.
None of these authorities support what plaintiffs seek—expansion of a consent decree
against the defendants over their objection.
Indeed, one of plaintiffs’ authorities reinforces the very point. In United States v.
Michigan, 940 F.2d 143 (6th Cir. 1991), the federal government alleged unconstitutional
conditions in three Michigan prisons. The parties entered a consent decree without any
admission or adjudication of liability. Five years later, the district court entered a series of
orders—one of which expanded the decree over the State of Michigan’s objection. On appeal,
the Sixth Circuit acknowledged that district courts “retain the authority to modify consent
decrees upon affirmative proof of a defect or deficiency in an original decree which impedes
Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 306 Filed: 07/06/12 Page: 9 of 16 PAGEID #: 10367
achieving the objectives of the decree.” Id. at 155. But the court also emphasized that “the
ordered modifications [must] further the purpose of the original decree without upsetting the . . .
scope of the basic agreement between the parties.” Id. (emphasis added).
The Sixth Circuit then reversed the district court’s modification—specifically, its
decision to “extend[] the [consent decree’s] classification plan to prison facilities statewide”—
for disregarding that principle. Id. at 159. That extension was “in derogation of the consent
decree, which, by agreement of the parties, limited the application of the classification plan to the
named institutions.” Id. The Sixth Circuit further observed that no constitutional adjudication
had occurred: “[T]he record reveal[ed] no affirmative factual proof of constitutional violations
to support this material extension and modification of the consent decree.” Id.
This case presents the same issues. This Court entered the consent decree in 2010, which
directed the Secretary and the State to count certain defective provisional ballots, in exchange for
the plaintiffs’ agreement to forgo adjudication of their constitutional claims. Citing changed
circumstances, plaintiffs now seek expansion of the decree. The Court must turn aside the
request. Any expansion of the decree beyond its original scope would be an “abuse[] [of]
discretion” and an “intru[sion] upon the sovereignty of [Ohio].” Id.
3. Plaintiffs cannot expand the consent decree by belatedly attempting to litigate the merits of their constitutional claims.
The rest of plaintiffs’ modification motion reads like a summary judgment request. They
allege that Ohio still rejects provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct or with incomplete
affirmation forms, even if poll workers prompted the voter’s mistake. “The continued rejection
of ballots cast by lawfully registered voters,” plaintiffs assert, “violates the United States
Constitution.” Plts’ Mot. for Mod. at 20 (Doc. 288). To “prevent unconstitutional
disenfranchisement,” plaintiffs urge the Court to strengthen the decree. Id. at 34.
Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 306 Filed: 07/06/12 Page: 10 of 16 PAGEID #: 10368
It is too late to litigate these matters. When plaintiffs entered the consent decree in 2010,
they “relinquish[ed] [a] valuable right”—specifically, “the right to be made ‘whole’ by proving a
violation of [federal law].” Stotts, 679 F.2d at 557; see also Williams v. Vukovich, 720 F.2d 909,
920 (6th Cir. 1983) (“[A] consent decree is a voluntary settlement agreement [in] which . . .
[p]laintiffs have exchanged their right to obtain adjudicatory relief which would fully eliminate
the effects of discrimination in the past as well as in the future.”). In their words, plaintiffs
“surrender[ed] their claims that the statutes are unconstitutional . . . ‘by agreeing to the consent
decree.’” Plts’ Mot. to Enjoin State Court Proceedings at 6 (Doc. 246) (citation omitted).
Two years later, plaintiffs desire to retain their benefits but eschew their burdens under
the consent decree. They insist on binding the State and the Secretary to the decree. Yet they
also want to pursue the very things they surrendered. Under the guise of a modification motion,
plaintiffs attempt both to litigate their claim that Ohio’s election code unconstitutionally
disenfranchises voters and to secure more invasive equitable relief against the Secretary. The
Court must reject that effort. “A party cannot simultaneously benefit from a decree and ignore
its corresponding affirmative obligations.” Stotts, 679 F.2d at 557.
If plaintiffs believe the consent decree is invalid or ineffective, they can ask the Court to
vacate it. At that point, the parties would return to their litigating positions. But as long as the
Court keeps the decree in place, plaintiffs must live with the bargain they struck. That means
forfeiting the right to litigate their claims and the right to request relief beyond the letter of the
consent decree.
C. Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge Ohio’s provisional-ballot procedures. A third obstacle fatally undercuts plaintiffs’ modification request: They no longer
possess standing to litigate these constitutional claims.
Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 306 Filed: 07/06/12 Page: 11 of 16 PAGEID #: 10369
To satisfy Article III’s standing requirements, a plaintiff must show “(1) it has suffered
an ‘injury in fact’ that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not
conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged act of the
defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed
by a favorable decision.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167,
180-81 (2000). At the outset of the case, the Secretary and the State challenged plaintiffs’
standing because NEOCH failed to produce evidence that Ohio’s provisional-ballot procedures
would inflict injury on the organization or its members.
This Court determined that NEOCH, as an organization, “ha[d] failed to establish
standing to sue on its own behalf.” Order at 7-8 (Doc. 108). But the Court held that NEOCH
had “organizational standing” to challenge Ohio’s provisional-ballot rules on behalf of its
“homeless members who did not have any form of identification required by the Voter ID Law
but who did have Social Security numbers.” Id. at 9.
In reaching this conclusion, the Court relied exclusively on “declarations of four NEOCH
members . . . stat[ing] that the declarant is homeless; is a United States Citizen, intends to vote in
the November 2006 election, does not have any form of identification required by the Voter ID
Law; and does have a Social Security number.”2 Id. at 9-10. Because “those voters would be
required to submit provisional ballots due to their lack of other identification” on Election Day,
the Court found that they had individual standing to challenge Ohio’s “provisions governing
whether provisional ballots could be counted.” Id. at 11-12. As such, NEOCH had
“organizational standing” in 2006 to sue on behalf of these members.
2 A fifth NEOCH member, Kyle Wangler, has since intervened as a plaintiff in this case.
Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 306 Filed: 07/06/12 Page: 12 of 16 PAGEID #: 10370
Six years have now passed. Plaintiffs again allege that Ohio’s provisional-ballot
procedures will disenfranchise their members at the upcoming election, and they again seek
injunctive relief against the Secretary. Because plaintiffs seek to restart this litigation, they must
again demonstrate Article III standing. “To qualify as a case fit for federal-court adjudication,
‘an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint
is filed.’” Arizonians for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 67 (1997) (emphasis added).
On that score, the record demonstrates that plaintiffs lack such standing:
• James Caldwell’s registration record indicates that he now lives in an apartment
building on Taylor Road, and that he has not voted in any recent election.
• Micky Trammel’s registration record indicates that he now lives in an apartment
building on West 25th Street, and that he voted absentee in the last election.
• Kyle Wangler’s registration record indicates that he now lives in a single-family
home on Barkwill Avenue, and that he has not voted in any recent election.
• Anthony Willis’s registration record indicates that he now lives in an apartment
building on East 79th Street, and that he voted absentee in the last election.
• Edward Rinn is not registered to vote in Cuyahoga County.
See Aff. of Jane M. Platten, Exs. A-E.
None of these members has standing to challenge Ohio’s provisional-ballot rules in his
own right. First, it appears that four of the individuals are no longer homeless. If true, they are
no longer confined to provisional-ballot voting on Election Day.
Second, Mr. Rinn is not registered to vote in Cuyahoga County; Mr. Caldwell is
registered but has never cast a ballot; and Mr. Wangler is registered but last voted in 2004. If
Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 306 Filed: 07/06/12 Page: 13 of 16 PAGEID #: 10371
these individuals do not vote, they face no risk of imminent injury from Ohio’s provisional-ballot
rules.
Third, the other members (Willis and Trammel) cast absentee ballots in recent elections.
When casting an absentee ballot, they did not need to produce identification. Rather, they
submitted an application listing the last four digits of their Social Security number, and the
county election board mailed them a regular ballot. See Ohio Rev. Code § 3509.03. Assuming
that Mr. Willis and Mr. Trammel continue their practice of voting absentee, they face no risk of
casting a provisional ballot in an upcoming election. They accordingly face no risk of imminent
injury from Ohio’s provisional-ballot rules.
This Court permitted plaintiffs’ challenge in 2006 precisely because they “ha[d]
demonstrated that four . . . members intended to vote on election day and had no form of
identification other than a Social Security number.” Order at 11 (Doc. 108). Plaintiffs have
failed to make that showing today. Absent a demonstration that any of their current members
face imminent injury from Ohio’s provisional-ballot procedures, plaintiffs lack standing to
maintain this lawsuit.
Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 306 Filed: 07/06/12 Page: 14 of 16 PAGEID #: 10372
CONCLUSION
The Court should deny plaintiffs’ motion to modify the consent decree.
Respectfully submitted,
MICHAEL DEWINE Attorney General of Ohio /s/ Aaron D. Epstein Aaron D. Epstein* (0063286) Assistant Attorney General *Trial Counsel 30 East Broad Street, 16th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 Phone: (614) 466-2872 Fax: (614) 725-7592 [email protected] Joseph N. Rosenthal (0018117) Amanda L. Scheeser (0074259) Assistant Attorneys General 30 East Broad Street, 23rd Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 Phone: (614) 644-7257 Fax: (866) 378-3771 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Defendant Secretary of State Jon Husted
MICHAEL DEWINE Attorney General of Ohio
/s/ Peggy W. Corn Peggy W. Corn* (0042197) Assistant Attorney General *Trial Counsel 30 E. Broad Street, 16th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 466-2864 Fax: (614) 644-7634 [email protected]
David M. Lieberman (0086005) Deputy Solicitor 30 E. Broad Street, 17th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 466-8980 Fax: (614) 466-5087 [email protected]
Counsel for Intervenor-Defendant State of Ohio
Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 306 Filed: 07/06/12 Page: 15 of 16 PAGEID #: 10373
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 6th day of July, 2012, this Joint Opposition to Plaintiffs’
Motion to Modify the April 19, 2010 Consent Decree was filed electronically. Notice of this
filing will be sent to all parties for whom counsel has entered an appearance by operation of the
Court’s electronic filing system.
/s/ Peggy W. Corn
Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 306 Filed: 07/06/12 Page: 16 of 16 PAGEID #: 10374
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
THE NORTHEAST OHIO COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JON HUSTED, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of Ohio,
Defendant,
and
THE STATE OF OHIO,
Intervenor-Defendant.
Case No. 2:06-cv-896
Judge Marbley
Magistrate Judge Kemp
AFFIDAVIT OF JANE M. PLATTEN
State of Ohio
County of Cuyahoga
I, Jane M. Platten, being over the age of eighteen and under no disability, testify
on information and belief as follows:
1. I am employed by the Cuyahoga County Board of EJections, where I serve in the position of Director, performing duties relating to administering elections in Cuyahoga County, including maintaining a public database:of registered voters and their voting history.
2. Based on my position and responsibilities, I have first-hand knowledge of the process by which the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections maintains voter registration information.
3. The Cuyahoga County Board of Elections public database (http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us) permits verification of a citizen's voter registration information. The database displays a voter's registration status,
1
Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 306-1 Filed: 07/06/12 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: 10375
address, precinct number, polling location, district information, and voter participation history.
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and accurate copy of James Caldwell's voter registration information, downloaded from the Cuyahoga County Board of Election's public database.
5. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and accurate copy of Micky Trammell's voter registration information, downloaded from the Cuyahoga County Board of Election' s public database.
6. Attached hereto as Exhibit Cis a tme and accurate copy of Anthony Willis's voter registration infonnation, downloaded from the Cuyahoga County Board of Election's public database.
7. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and accurate copy of Kyle Wangler's voter registration information, downloaded from the Cuyahoga County Board of Election's public database.
8. The Cuyahoga County Board of Elections' records reflect that Edward Rinn is not currently registered to vote in Cuyahoga County. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and accurate copy of the results of a query for Mr. Rinn from the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections public database.
Further Affiant sayeth naught.
•
~Q~G, otary Pubhc \- \ ~ - \ "\
2
Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 306-1 Filed: 07/06/12 Page: 2 of 7 PAGEID #: 10376
My Voting Information
1___ __________ . _ _( Search: I Home Voters
Am I Registered?
Where Do l Vote?
Reglstnltlon
Using Optical Scan Ballots
ID Requirements
Declare or Change Party
Voter Info Guide
Vote By Mall
Provisional Voting
Poll Workers
Candidates
Election Calendar
Election Information About Us
Business With The Board
Community Outreach
FAQs Forms & Applications
Help America to Vote Act
Job Opportunities
links & Resources
Maps
Notices & Calendar
Reports & Historical Info
Sltemap
Spanish Advisory Board
VIdeos
Current Events & News
I I
EXHIBIT
A
You are here: limn~>~> Am I Registered?
~ l Am J Registered? You must use Internet Explorer to use this application. If you do not have Internet Explorer, please use : ! the Polling ~cation Search to find out where you should vote.
; ! If your address is not current in our database. complete this Voter Realstratlon Card • print it, sign (mus~ j have the original signature) and mall It to the Board of Elections - 2925 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio : : 44115. l
l Enter your last na!lle and date of birth. H you do not see the code above the search box. please I click the search button again to view another code. · . .
~ I ; i
------------------------~._.iloo_.v.m.e.r.ln~ro~nm.a_ti_on------------------------: 1·. Voter lnfonnatlon Current Poll1ng Location Dl&trk:t Information
JAMES CAlCMal
1885 TAYLOR RO EAST CLEVElAND, Ott 44112
Party: X
City· Wlnl· Precinct EAST CI.EVELANO -04-C
Election Dates
Next election Is on 111812012
PROSPECT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
1843 STAtMOOO ROAD EAST Cl.EV6..ANO OH 44112·2G01
Get MtD ami DfredjO!I!
Voter registration ends on 101912012
~wBal!ots
Vote By Mall (Absentee Voting)
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 11 COUNTY COUNCIL OISl'RICT 10 EAST CLEVE CSD ·TAXIOI 1812 EAST CLEVE MUNI COURT DISTRICT EAST CLEVElAND LIBRARY DISTRICT HOUSE DIS"m!CT e STATE BOARD OF EDU DISTRICT 11 STATE SENATE OISTRICT25
Vote by man application can be submitted beginning on 1/112012 and ending at 12:00 PM. 111312012
Voter Participation History
NOTE: VOTER PARTICIPATION DATA MAY NOT 8E IMMEDIATELY AVAilABLE AT THE ENOOF AN ElECTIOH. PLEASE AllOW FOR CERllFICATIONS AND DATA ENTRY.
• last election voted: • Precinct: • aanotType:<
ril VIew More
Poll Worker Participation History
NOTE: POLl WORKER PARTICIPATI<»> DATA MAY NOT BE IMMEOIATtlY AVAILABlE AT THE END OF AH ELECTION. PlEASE AllOW FOR CERTifiCATIONS AND DATA ENTRY.
: i
. i
. i : . . I .. . :
• Aceuslblllty statement : I http://tJoe.cuyahogacounty.us/en-US/GetVotersTemplate.aspx?LanguageCD=en-US&Ite... 7/3/201~
-------------------------------------------------------------· , i
Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 306-1 Filed: 07/06/12 Page: 3 of 7 PAGEID #: 10377
My Voting Infonnation
-· ··· · ···
.
. . ... .
__ ---·-·--· I Search : I Home
Voters Am I Registered?
Where Do I Vote?
Registration
Using Optical Scan Ballots
lD Requirements
Declare or Change Party
Voter Info Guide
Vote By Mall
Provisional Voting
Poll Workers
Candidates Election Calendar Election Information
About Us Business With The Board
Community Outreach
FAQs Forms & Applications
Help America to Vote Act Job Opportunities Unks & Resources Maps
Notices & Calendar Reports & Historical Info
Sttemap
Spanish Advisory Board VIdeos Current Events & News
EXHIBIT
Page I+ . . •! -
You are here:~> Y2!Jtl'l >Am I Registered?
Am I Registered? You must use Internet Explorer to use tnis application. If you do not have Internet Explorer. please use the Polling Location Search to find ou where you should vote.
. ;
. i
. ;
If your address is nof current in our database, complete this Voter Registration Card • print it, sign {must ! have the original signature) and mail it to the Board of Elections- 2925 Eudid Avenue, Cleveland. Ohio · · 44115.
Enter your last name and date of blrth. lt you do not see thp code above the search box, please click the search button again to view another code.
. i
. '
Detailed Voter Information : ; --------------------~~~~----~------------------~ Voter lnfonnatlon
MICKY TRAMMELL
t74525TH ST ClEVElAND, OH 4411~
Current Polling Location District lnfonnatlon :' 1·.
CLEVElAND CSO -TAX 10 I 1809 RIVERVIEW APARlMENTS CLEVElAND LIBRARY DISTRICT
CLEVElAND MUNICIPAL COURT OIST. 1795 WEST 25TH STREET CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 11 ' ' CLEVElAND 0H 4411~132 COUNTY COUNCIL DISTRICT 01 . i
Party: DEMOCRAT
Clly ·Want -Precinct:
HOUSE DISTRICT 10 Get MaR and PI!!Ctlon! STATE BOARD OF EOO DISTRICT 11
ClEVElAND ..{13.0
Election Dates
Next election iS on 11/612012
Voter registration ends on 10J9J2012
lilv'rew Ballots
Vote ay Mall (Absentee Voting)
STATE SENATE DISTRICT 21
Vote by mai application can be submitted beginning on 1/112012 and ending at 12:00 PM, 111312012
:voter Participation History
NOTE: VOTER PAATICIPAnON DATA MAY NOT 8€ IMMEDIATELY AVAILASLE AT THE END OF AN ElECTION. PLEASE AllOW FOR CERT!FICAT!ONSANO[>ATA ENTRY.
• l ast election voted: 31612012 • Prednct: CLEVELAND ·03-G • Ballot Type:< Absentee
~View More
Poll Worker Participation History
NOTE: POLL v.QRKER PARTtCIPAnON DATA MAY NOT BE lMMEDtATf.LY AVAilABLE AT THE END Of AN ELECTION. PLEASE AlLOWFORCERnFtCATIONSANO DATA ENlRY.
• Accessibility Statement
I
http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/en-US/GetVotersTemplate.aspx?LanguageCD=en-US&Ite... 7/3120q
Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 306-1 Filed: 07/06/12 Page: 4 of 7 PAGEID #: 10378
My Voting Information
I
~~~ ~--__ -_-__ -___ j,_s_e_a-rc_h_:_,l
Home
Voters Am I Registered?
Where Do I Vote?
Registration
Using Optical Scan Ballots ID Requirements
Declare or Change Party
Voter Info Guide
Vote By Mall
Provisional Voting
Poll Workers
Candidates Election Calendar
Election Information
About Us Business With The Board
Community Outreach FAQs
Forms & Appilcations
Help America to Vote Act Job Opportunities Links & Resources Maps
Notices & Calendar
Reports & Historical Info Sitemap
Spanish Advisory Board Videos
Current Events & News
I I
EXHIBIT
c
. i
You are here:~>~> Am I Registered?
Am I Registered? You must use Internet Explorer to use this application. If you do not haw Internet Explorer, please use : ~ the Polling Location Search to find out where you should vote. ; i If your address Is not current in our database, complete this Voter Registration Card . print it, sign {musi ; have the original signature) and mail it to the Board of Elections - 2925 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland. Ohio 44115.
Enter your last name and date of birth. If you do not see the cod$ above the search box, please click the search button again to view another code.
Detailed Votef Information Voter lnfonnatlon
ANTHONY INilliS
197&7WHST CLEVELAND, OH44102
Pa!11: DfMOCAAT
Clty ~WIRI·~: CLEVElAND ·15-L
Election Dates
Cunent PoUing Location
MICHAEl ZONE RECREAllON CENTER
8301 LORAIN AVENUE ClEVE\ANDOH 44102--4474
Get Map ;md Q!ttcllont
Next eledlon Is on 11/612012
Voter registration ends on 10/912012
~leW Ballots
Vote By Mall (Absentee Voting)
DIStrict Information CLEVEI.ANDCSO ·TAX ID •1800 CLEVElAND liBRARY DISTRICT ClfVElAHD MUNICIPAl COURT OIST. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 11
· COUtm' COUNCIL DISTRiCT 03 HOUSE DISTRICT 13 STATE 90ARD OF EDU DISTRICT 11 STATE SENATE DISTRICT 23
Vote by mall application can be submitted beginning on 1/112012 and ending at 12:00 PM,111312012
Voter Partlclpatlon History
NOTE: VOTER PARllCIPATlON DATA MAY NOT BE IMMEDIATElY AVAILABLE AT THE END Of AN ElECTION. PLEASE ALLOW FOR CERTIFICATIONS AND DATA ENTRY.
• l..a$t election voted: 1112J2010 • Prednct CLEVElAND -15-l • Ballot Type:< Absentee
t¥l View More
Poll Worker Participation History
NOTE: POll WORKER PARTICIPATION DATA MAY. NOT BE IM\4EDIATEL Y AVAILABLE AT THE END OF AN ELECTION. PLEASE ALLOW FOR CERTIFICATIONS AND DATA ENTRY.
• Ac~5ibillty Statoment
; :
i '
I
' ! i
http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/en-US/GetVotersTemplate.aspx?LanguageCD=en-US&Ite... 7/3/201
,,
Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 306-1 Filed: 07/06/12 Page: 5 of 7 PAGEID #: 10379
My Voting Information
1_ .. __ ~·- ---- I Search : I Home
Voters Am l Registered?
Where Do J Vote?
Registration
Using Optical Scan Ballots ID Requirements .
Declare or Change Party
Voter Info Guide
Vote By Mail Provisional Voting
Poll Workers
Candidates . Election calendar Election Information About Us
Business With The Board Community Outreach
FAQs Forms & Applications
Help America to Vote Act
Job Opportunities links & Resources Maps Notices & Calendar Reports & Historical Info Sitemap Spanish Advisory Board Videos Current Events & News
I:IU1JDII
D II
Page 1
You are here: !:f:2.m! > ~ >Am., Registered?
Am I Registered? You must use internet Explorer to use this application. If you do not have Internet Explorer, please use the Polling Location Search to find out where you should vote.
; I . '
' I I : ! !
If your address is not c;urrent In our database, complete this Voter Registration Card • print It, sign (mus~ have the original signature) and mail it to the Board of Elections - 2925 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio i i 44115.
Enter your last name and date of birth. tr you do not see the code above the search box, please click the search button again to view another code.
Detailed Voter Information
Voter lnformation
KYLE WANGLER
6111 BARKIMLLAVE CLEVELAND, OH 44127
Party: OEMOCRAT
City • wanl · PNclnct: CLEVElAND ·06-J
Election Dates
CLWrent Polling Location
ALEXIA MANOR
5125 HECTOR AVENUE ClEVELAND OH 44127
~ Map and Dlrect!oM
Next eledion is on 111612012
Voter registration ends on 1Qf912012 .
l¥Mew Ballots
Dlstllct tnfonnatlon ClEVElANDCSD-TAXIDI 1809 CLEVElAND UBRARY DISTRICT CLEVElAND MUNICIPAl COURT DIST. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 11 COUNJY COUHCIL DISTRICT 08 HOUSE DISTRICT t1 STATE BOARD oF EOO DISTRICT 11 STATE SENATE DISTRJCT 21
i i I :
I i I I
; I
! : . i
. ~
. !
:! ~--~~~~------~~---------------------------------Vote By Mall (Absentee Voting)
Vote by·matl application can be sobmitted beginning on 1/112012 and ending at 12:00 PM, 111312012
Voter Participation History
NOTE: \'OTER PARTICf'ATION DATA MAY NOT BE IMMEDIATELY AVAI.ABL.EATTHE END OFAN ElECTlON. PlfASE ALLOW FOR CERTIFI<:ATlONS AND DATA ENTRY.
• Last election voted: 111212004 • Precinct CLEVELAND-13- D • BallOt Type:< Poll
OOVJewMore
Poll Worker Participation History
NOTE: POLl Y.ORKER PARTICIPATION DATA MAY NOT BE IMMEDIATELY AVAilASLE AT THE END OF AH ElECTION. PLEASE AllOW FOR CERllFI<:ATlONS AND DATA ENTRY.
• Accessibility Statement
http:/ /boe.cuyahogacounty .uslen-US/GetVotersTemplate.aspx?LanguageCD=en-US&Ite... 7/3/20 1'
Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 306-1 Filed: 07/06/12 Page: 6 of 7 PAGEID #: 10380
My Voting Information
( ____ ·-·-·--- I Search : I Home Voters Am I Registered?
Where Dol Vote7
Registration
Using Optical Scan Ballots ID Requirements
Declare or Change Party
Voter Info Guide
Vote By Mail Provisional Voting PoU Workers
Candidates Election Calendar Election Information About Us
Business With The Board Com~unlty Outreach
FAQS Forms & Applications
Help America to Vote Act
Job Opportunities
Unks &. Resources
Maps
Notices & Calendar Reports & Historical Info Sltemap Spanish Advisory Board Videos CUrrent Events & News
EXHIBIT
E:
' .•.• ~ ' '")itii ,··
: I
Page 1 ofi . . ,,,, .... . . ,., .. "";':-· . ·. · • .• ,,;; ... .. ~> ·, .' . .......... .. .......
• c '! •
~ -.= ·ae· ~ ~ . . •,. ~ I-!:
·~·-:I I:
You are here: ti9.fM >~>Am I Registered?
Am I Registered? You must use Internet Explorer to use this appicatlon. If you do not have Internet Explorer, please use the Polling Location Search to find out where you should Vde.
i;
If your address Is not current In our database, oomplete this Voter Reglmatk!n Card • print it, sign (musti i have the original slgnature) and ma~ it 10 the Board of Elections- 2925 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland. OhiO ; ! 44115. L Enter yow a.t name and ct.te of birth. If you do not aee the code above the aean:h box. please dick thueareh button again to view another code.
Search for Voter Information - B6$Ciueda de lnformad6n de Sector
Last Name -Ape !lido:
Date ofBlrth-Fechade Nacimiento: I( ____ ¢ .. -·-·-.... ... -~'YYYY)
I Search - Busqueda I L ________________ _
Voter Search Results Voter registration was not found. Please check the entered Last Name and Date of Birth and fly again.
t. ; ~ · , I ..
If the information provided Is incorrect, please call the Registration department of Cuyahoga COunty · . Board of Electloos at ~16-443-3298 Md verify yoor registration information. ·
Boan1 or EleCtiOns 2925 EvcldAvenue Clelleland, Olllo 44115 (216} 44$-3200
• Access~ SUUmtnt . • Dlsc:Wrner
• PriYKY Policy • Public Reconlt Polley
.
. : ; ! : ;
.. :! : :
http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/en-US/GetVotersTemplate.aspx?LanguageCD=en-US&Ite ...
Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 306-1 Filed: 07/06/12 Page: 7 of 7 PAGEID #: 10381