Case: 1:20-cv-01908-DAP Doc #: 88 Filed: 10/06/20 1 of 3. PageID #: 2831

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE,
OF OHIO, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
FRANK LAROSE,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:20-CV-01908

JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER
OPINION AND ORDER

On August 26, 2020, Plaintiffs, who are non-partisan civil rights organizations and
individual voters, filed this suit to challenge Defendant Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose’s
(the “Secretary”) Directive 2020-16, which pertains to the use of secure drop boxes for the
November 3, 2020 election. On September 4, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the pending motion for
preliminary injunction asking the Court to enjoin enforcement of Directive 2020-16 to the extent
that it would limit county boards of elections to a single ballot drop box at the board office. Doc
#: 13. The Secretary and Intervenors 1 filed briefs in opposition. Doc ##: 30, 31. Plaintiffs filed a
reply. Doc #: 34. On September 23 and 24, 2020, the Court held a hearing at which time the parties
presented witnesses and other evidence.
On September 25, the Court issued an Order that addressed many of the background facts
relevant to Plaintiffs’ Motion. See Doc #: 77. In that Order, the Court referred to the parallel state
court litigation, where the trial court had enjoined the portion of the challenged Directive. Id. at 5–
6. The Court stated that the resolution of the state court litigation might moot this case if the highest
court to rule upheld the trial court’s decision. Id. at 6. Because a federal court should address

1

Intervenors are: Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., the Ohio Republican Party, the Republican National Committee,
and the National Republican Congressional Committee. Doc #: 27.

1

 Case: 1:20-cv-01908-DAP Doc #: 88 Filed: 10/06/20 2 of 3. PageID #: 2832

constitutional questions only as a last resort, this Court held in abeyance any ruling on Plaintiffs’
Motion. Id. Because of the looming problem in Cuyahoga County identified at the hearing, the
Court ordered the Secretary to work closely with the Cuyahoga County board to address the
problem and ordered the Secretary to file a report on those efforts. Id. at 6–7.
On September 30, the Secretary filed his report, stating he had approved the portion of the
Cuyahoga County board’s plan to have board staff collect absentee ballots at a parking lot owned
by the Cleveland Metropolitan School District that is one block away and across the street from
the board office. Doc #: 79. The Secretary continued to prohibit the remaining portion of the plan,
which would have permitted voters to deliver ballots to board staff at six public libraries
throughout the county. See Doc #: 77 at 5. On October 2, the Court ordered the Secretary to explain
why he was prohibiting board staff from receiving ballots at public libraries. See non-document
Order (Oct. 2, 2020).
Later on October 2, the 10th District Court of Appeals upheld the state trial court’s
determination that the Secretary’s interpretation of R.C. 3509.05 is not reasonable, and that the
statute neither prohibits nor requires ballot drop boxes at locations other than the boards of
elections. See Ohio Democratic Party et al. v. LaRose, No. 20AP432 (Ohio Ct. App. Oct. 2, 2020).
The Court of Appeals reversed the injunction, however, leaving in place the prohibition in
Directive 2020-16 on drop boxes at locations other than board offices.
Throughout this litigation, the Secretary has asserted his belief that Ohio law prohibits offsite drop boxes. While he has advanced other justifications for that portion of Directive 2020-16
prohibiting boards of election from installing off-site drop boxes, the Court does not find any of
them convincing. All three courts to have considered the matter have rejected the Secretary’s

2

 Case: 1:20-cv-01908-DAP Doc #: 88 Filed: 10/06/20 3 of 3. PageID #: 2833

interpretation of R.C. 3509.05. It is now settled law that off-site drop boxes are neither prohibited
nor compelled in Ohio.
Yesterday, October 5, the Secretary issued Directive 2020-22. In his latest Directive, the
Secretary authorized any board to deploy its staff to receive ballots at sites other than the board
office. This means that the Cuyahoga County board may implement its intended plan to receive
ballots at six public libraries, and that any other board in Ohio that votes to do so may deploy its
staff to receive ballots off-site, so long as the board complies with the procedures set forth in
Section II of Directive 2020-22.
While the off-site staff collection of absentee ballots may not have all the advantages of
off-site drop boxes, such a program alleviates many of the concerns raised at the hearing. There is
no evidence before the Court that Secretary LaRose is currently prohibiting any board from doing
something it voted to do to protect the voting rights of its citizens with respect to off-site drop
boxes or off-site delivery of ballots. Therefore, there is no problem that requires an injunction.
Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court fervently
hopes that now that voting has begun, 2 the litigation over drop boxes and off-site ballot collection
will come to an end. Should it come to pass, however, that between now and November 3 any
county board of elections votes to implement off-site drop boxes, Plaintiffs may refile their lawsuit,
so long as the affected board is added as a party.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Dan Aaron Polster_October 6, 2020_
DAN AARON POLSTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

When I rode my bicycle past the Cuyahoga County board offices at 8:30 this morning on my way to the federal
courthouse, the line of people waiting to vote were already very long.

3