How can people vote early if they can't get to their polling place? The answer is they can't.
But in Hamilton County, Ohio, following a the county's Board of Elections from its current location in densely-populated downtown Cincinnati, the county's only in-person early voting site may soon become inaccessible to thousands of Hamilton County residents. As the above map makes clear, for the members of the 40 to 55 percent of households in downtown Cincinnati who don't have access to a vehicle (many of whom are ), moving the in-person early voting site to the remote suburb of Mount Airy could be tantamount to removing their access to the ballot.
You see, early in-person voting makes casting a ballot more , and therefore more , especially for voters on tight schedules, who tend to come from traditionally-. In addition to extending the vote to the overextended, early in-person voting shortens Election Day , and reduces the administrative toll on poll workers and electors alike, thereby reducing the potential for mistakes. In fact, increased access to early-in person voting was one of the of the bipartisan Presidential Commission of Election Administration (PCEA) released last month. The PCEA was established last year, partially in response to complaints about long lines on Election Day in 2012. What makes early in-person voting such an important tool to increasing voter accessibility is that it's convenient; it is precisely this aspect that the proposed move most threatens.
In its current location, Hamilton County's early in-person voting site is within five miles of 59 percent of Cincinnati residents, and is easily accessible by public transportation. This site is also accessible to residents throughout the county, as over of households in and around Mount Airy have access to a car. By contrast, the Mount Airy site is convenient to only 29 percent of Cincinnati's residents, and is a staggering 1.5 hour bus ride from downtown Cincinnati. This means that, for many downtown residents, early in-person voting comes at the cost of three-hour round trip bus ride.
State and municipal authorities have voiced their opposition to moving the early in-person voting site. Cincinnati Mayor John Cranely is so convinced that moving the county's early in-person voting site away from downtown will have a negative impact on downtown voters that he agreed to in lieu of a move. Secretary of State John Husted agreed that it would be the most "logical" decision to keep early in-person voting in downtown Cincinnati. We hope that the Hamilton County BOE applies Secretary of State Husted's logic and works to keep Hamilton County's in-person early voting convenient and accessible.
Learn more about voter suppression and other civil liberties issues: Sign up for breaking news alerts, , and .
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Voting Rights
Election Day is Over. Why is the Electoral College Voting Now?Election Day is Over. Why is the Electoral College Voting Now?
The Electoral College meets December 17th to certify the results of the 2024 election, but why? The ACLU breaks down if the process is worth keeping. -
New York Supreme CourtDec 2024
Voting Rights
New York Communities for Change v. Nassau CountyNew York Communities for Change v. Nassau County
This case in New York state court centers on the landmark John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York (NYVRA) and the New York Municipal Home Rule Law (MHRL). The NYVRA, like several other state voting rights acts enacted in recent years, expands upon the federal Voting Rights Act’s protections against racial vote dilution. The MHRL prohibits racial discrimination and partisan gerrymandering in local-level redistricting. The ACLU’s Voting Rights Project and State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the New York Civil Liberties Union, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Steptoe LLP filed a lawsuit on behalf of voters of color in Nassau County, New York alleging that a redistricting plan implemented in 2023 for Nassau County’s legislative districts dilutes the voting strength of Black, Latino, and Asian residents and is gerrymandered for partisan advantage in violation of the NYVRA and the MHRL. -
ArizonaNov 2024
Voting Rights
American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona v. RicherAmerican Civil Liberties Union of Arizona v. Richer
We sued elections officials in Arizona to extend the mail ballot “cure” deadline after ballot processing delays threatened to disenfranchise thousands of voters without notice. -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
Voting Rights
Civil Rights Groups Respond to Flawed Trial Court Opinion on New York Voting Rights ActCivil Rights Groups Respond to Flawed Trial Court Opinion on New York Voting Rights Act
ORANGE COUNTY, Calif. — On November 7, a New York State Supreme Court trial judge issued an opinion striking down the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York (NYVRA). Today, the Legal Defense Fund, American Civil Liberties Union, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, New York American Civil Liberties Union, and Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law issued the following statement in response to the ruling: “The NYVRA is unquestionably constitutional, and protects the freedom to vote for all New Yorkers by helping to ensure voters are not subjected to discrimination when participating in the political process. “The Nov. 7 decision by a state trial judge is deeply flawed and plainly incorrect. We fully expect the decision to be reversed on appeal. It flies in the face of basic legal principles and constitutes a stunning overreach in striking down the entire law, including provisions that are not at issue in the case. “To put it simply, the NYVRA does not discriminate, it bans discrimination – and in doing so protects New Yorkers’ most fundamental right. “New York is stronger when everyone has an equal opportunity to vote.”