A federal court has blocked a new Ohio voter registration provision that required citizens registering at the Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) to present documentary proof of citizenship. This change, which was included in Ohio’s recent two-year transportation budget, has been challenged in court by the organizations Red, Wine and Blue and the Ohio Alliance for Retired Americans. Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose has stated his intent to appeal the ruling and has asked the judge to stay the order, which would allow the requirements to remain in effect while the case proceeds.
The legal arguments in the case center on the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, commonly known as the Motor Voter Act. This federal law mandates that vehicle registration offices assist people in registering to vote. Crucially, the act requires individuals to attest under penalty of perjury that they are citizens. It also explicitly bars states from demanding more than the “minimum information necessary” to complete a voter registration. The challengers’ complaint argues that Ohio cannot impose additional voter registration requirements that conflict with federal law, asserting that Congress deemed an attestation sufficient to demonstrate citizenship and allowed nothing beyond that minimum.
To Red, Wine and Blue and the Ohio Alliance for Retired Americans, the new Ohio law represents a significant change, even though all voters must be citizens. They contend that requiring documentary proof instead of a sworn statement will adversely affect their members who may not have these documents readily available. Specific groups highlighted include seniors who might have lost birth certificates, individuals whose names have changed due to marriage or divorce, or those with lapsed passports. Younger Ohioans still in school, who may have left documents with their parents for safekeeping, could also face difficulties. The challengers added that acquiring the necessary documents can be both costly and time-consuming, with processing times ranging from weeks to several months. Research from the University of Maryland suggests that 21 million Americans do not have the necessary documents readily available to register.
Secretary of State Frank LaRose and Ohio Motor Vehicles Registrar Charles Norman have maintained that the new requirements are not a substantive change. In court filings, they argued that because Ohioans already present proof of citizenship or non-citizenship for their state credentials, registrars are already informed about applicants’ eligibility to vote. The state officials also contended that the challenging organizations lacked legal standing, asserting that they could not demonstrate how their members would be harmed. They cited the example of Margaret Dutcher, referenced in the challengers’ filings, who possesses a passport but believed she should not be compelled to show it to register to vote. The state argued that if she refused to produce her passport, any injury would be “self-inflicted.”
U.S. District Judge Solomon Oliver's decision focused on a critical interpretation of the Motor Voter Act: precisely when a driver’s license application is considered “submitted.” This timing determines when the BMV is obligated to offer voter registration. Ohio officials argued that an application is not submitted until all required identity documents are presented. However, the challengers asserted that an application is submitted the moment a person applies, irrespective of whether they have all necessary documents at that initial point.
The judge considered the case of Margaret Dutcher, who, after moving to Ohio from California, visited the BMV with multiple documents, including her U.S. Passport, California driver’s license, two utility bills, and a Social Security card. Despite presenting a U.S. Passport, a BMV employee informed Dutcher her documents were insufficient to obtain a driver’s license, thereby preventing her from registering to vote at that time. Dutcher eventually registered on a subsequent visit after gathering additional documents. She told the court that this process “creates unnecessary obstacles to voting.” Judge Oliver noted the irony that Dutcher actually provided the specific proof of citizenship Ohio law sought, but still could not register because Ohio had linked the voter registration offer to the success of a driver’s license application.
In his ruling, Judge Oliver concluded that the correct time for BMV visitors to be offered voter registration must be at the point of application, not after their driver’s license application has been approved. Oliver explained that to interpret the law differently would permit states to make BMV voter registration more difficult, potentially leading to fewer registrations as the opportunity would not be proactively offered to eligible citizens. The judge issued a preliminary injunction, which bars the state from enforcing its new documentary proof of citizenship provisions. His order clarifies that it does not compel the BMV to offer voter registration to individuals who explicitly state they are not citizens.
In a press release, Secretary LaRose expressed “strong disagreement” with the decision, promising an immediate appeal. His office has also filed a motion to stay Judge Oliver’s order, arguing that requiring the BMV to offer voter registration during incomplete applications would impose an immense burden on the BMV and demand a monumental effort from the agency. LaRose referenced the case of Maria Dearaujo, one of six individuals charged by former Attorney General Dave Yost for casting a ballot as a noncitizen, a situation LaRose attributed to incorrect advice from a BMV clerk. LaRose insisted this case “proves it’s not enough to just have a person’s attestation.” Judge Oliver has requested the challengers respond to the state’s request for a stay by September 3.
