The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit [official website] on Tuesday upheld [opinion, PDF] cuts to early voting in Ohio as well as the elimination of the so-called “Golden Week” in which voters could register and cast their votes simultaneously. Ohio previously allowed 35 days of early in-person voting but cut that to 29 days and eliminated the Golden Week provision. Ohio Democrats and others alleged that the change would disproportionately impact minorities. A federal judge ruled in May that this was unconstitutional [JURIST report] and in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) [DOJ materials], but the Sixth Circuit reversed:

Nearly a third of the states offer no early voting. Adopting plaintiffs’ theory of disenfranchisement would create a “one-way ratchet” that would discourage states from ever increasing early voting opportunities, lest they be prohibited by federal courts from later modifying their election procedures in response to changing circumstances. Further, while the challenged regulation may slightly diminish the convenience of registration and voting, it applies even-handedly to all voters, and, despite the change, Ohio continues to provide generous, reasonable, and accessible voting options to all Ohioans. The issue is not whether some voter somewhere would benefit from six additional days of early voting or from the opportunity to register and vote at the same time. Rather, the issue is whether the challenged law results in a cognizable injury under the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act. We conclude that it does not.

Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted praised the ruling [press release], saying, “I hope the Democrats will end their wasteful lawsuits so we can all move forward with this election.”

Voting rights have been the subject of numerous legal challenges across the US, particularly in a presidential election year. Last month a three-judge panel for the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit [official website] struck down [JURIST report] several provisions of North Carolina’s House Bill 589 (HB 589) [text, PDF], most notably its voter identification requirements. In May a federal judge ruled that Virginia’s voter ID law, which requires that voters have a valid form of ID either before voting or within three days after voting, is constitutional [JURIST report]. Also in May a federal judge ruled that Kansas cannot require voters to provide proof of citizenship [JURIST report] when registering to vote.