There were no noted dissents to this order.
This is no surprise. I expected at most two votes for the Democrats’ position here.
Why was this such a weak case? As I explained when the 6th Circuit reversed the trial court’s order restoring “Golden Week,” a week where one could both register to vote and early vote at the same time:
I have been very skeptical of this litigation, mostly for the reasons given by the majority in the outset of this opinion. Ohio’s early voting/no excuse absentee balloting period is exceedingly generous. And while I might support Golden Week as good policy, I worry when courts are used in this way to prevent every cutback in voting, especially after voting rights proponents had settled a suit with Ohio on favorable terms (very favorable given that the legal theory advanced, especially under Equal Protection, seemed rather weak). I also have worried, and worry, that cases like this make bad law when there are more serious voting cutbacks, although this opinion is written in such a way that major damage appears to have been avoided.
This does not mean litigation is over in Ohio, which once again could prove very important for the presidential race. To begin with, there are still major cases awaiting Sixth Circuit decisions in a case involving voter purges and another involving the rules for provisional ballots. Also, news today that SOS Husted has not, as promised, sent absentee ballot applications to all Ohio voters could spur further litigation.
So keep it tuned to this channel.
[This post has been updated.]