Ohio residents will continue to face a proof of citizenship requirement when registering to vote at Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) locations, following a divided ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday. The decision lifts a lower court order and comes less than two weeks before Ohio’s voter registration deadline.
Under provisions of 2025’s Ohio House Bill 54, BMV clerks offer clients the chance to register to vote only after they complete a driver’s license application, which itself requires documentary proof of citizenship. This process was challenged by two civic organizations, The Ohio Alliance for Retired Americans and Red Wine & Blue.
The organizations argued that the BMV’s policy violates the National Voter Registration Act, commonly known as the motor voter law. This federal law requires vehicle registration agencies to offer voter registration opportunities when someone submits a driver’s license application and directs states to require "only the minimum amount of information necessary." Voter registration forms available at many other public agencies around Ohio do not include a proof of citizenship requirement; instead, applicants declare their eligibility to vote under penalty of perjury. The civic groups contended that the BMV’s condition of accessing voter registration services on proof of citizenship violates this minimum information standard.
To illustrate their concerns, the groups presented two members who were initially prevented from registering. Both women encountered difficulties because their documents did not reflect name changes after marriage. In one instance, Margaret Dutcher, who had a valid U.S. Passport, was still unable to register because she did not possess all the necessary documents to obtain a driver’s license. Research from the University of Maryland indicates that 21 million Americans lack readily available, up-to-date citizenship documents.
A district judge had previously attempted a compromise, ordering state officials to cease requiring BMV visitors to produce proof of citizenship specifically for voter registration. His order applied to individuals whose license applications were "ultimately unsuccessful" due to a lack of documents, but not to those who affirmatively stated they were not citizens.
However, Circuit Judges John Nalbandian and Whitney Hermandorfer, both appointees to the court, formed the majority opinion that downplayed Ohio’s policy and the injury alleged by the plaintiffs. The majority concluded that the BMV’s electronic system, which guides applicants through a license application before prompting them to register to vote, is a reasonable arrangement. They reasoned that the universe of eligible license holders includes minors and non-citizens, neither of whom can vote. The majority also noted that the BMV provides paper forms, and clerks are required to process applications. The state had argued that a more proactive effort to offer registration would necessitate "wholesale retraining and restructuring of the BMV application process," an argument the majority accepted.
The central issue for the majority was the underlying harm or lack thereof. They did not accept the premise that the individuals identified in the case had suffered a redressable injury, which is a requirement to have standing to sue. The majority stated that "Neither Dutcher nor Fazio ever encountered anything having to do with the Associations’ H.B. 54 voter-registration challenge." Instead, the court found that BMV officials rejected their driver’s license applications based on independent paperwork defects. The majority suggested that the challengers were finding fault with the administration of driver’s licenses rather than the new voter registration law itself, implying that enjoining the law would not address their concerns. Furthermore, the majority determined the case to be moot, as the women involved had since obtained their licenses and successfully registered to vote.
Circuit Judge Kevin Ritz, an appointee to the court, presented a dissenting view. He dismissed the majority’s concerns regarding standing and mootness, stating that two people who wished to register were denied that opportunity when they applied for a license, and that "That is enough." Judge Ritz argued that the plaintiffs later getting registered did not render the case moot, as such an injury could potentially recur for others. He expressed reluctance to create a "Catch-22" scenario where a litigant would need to forgo a fundamental right to challenge a law.
Judge Ritz, aligning with the district court judge, focused on the importance of "submission" under the motor voter law. He asserted that BMV clerks must offer registration to people who "submit" a driver’s license application, and this occurs when a person seeks a license, not solely when the BMV accepts their completed application. Therefore, he argued, even individuals who lack all the necessary documents for a license should still be offered an opportunity to register. Judge Ritz also found "nothing in the record" to support the state’s claim that a more proactive approach to registration could lead to voter confusion. He wrote there was "no proof, for instance," that voters would be confused by a deputy registrar offering them a paper form already available elsewhere at the BMV.
