'Unknown' by Unknown - Page 42 of 102

to be "disruptive" in minority-majority districts and enjoined the party from using the list.171 The

Third created granted a hearing en with and therefore stayed the order and vacated the opinion.172

The demo District Court for the Southern District of Ohio found the same activities to

version the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.173 Most importantly, notice of the

Republican-intended challenge and subsequent hearing was sent to the 35,000 voters far too late

to be of any use to the challengee.174 In fact, the notice was sent so late, that many did not

receive it before the election at all, and the court found that ineffective notice must have been the

intent:

The Defendants' intended timing and manner of sending notice is not reasonably

calculated to apprise Plaintiff Voters of the hearing regarding the challenge to

their registrations, nor to give the them opportunity to present their objections, as

demonstrated by the individual situations of Plaintiffs Miller and Haddix...it

seems that Defendants intend to send the notice to an address which has already

been demonstrated to be faulty.175

The court also found that the challenge statute in general was not narrowly tailored

enough justify the "severe" burden on voters.176 While the state's interest in preventing

fraudulent voting was compelling, there were other ways to do that besides allowing partisan

groups to arbitrarily challenge voters.177

Analysis

Although the "caging" tactics targeting 35,000 new voters by the Ohio Republican

Party were eventually struck down, it is likely they had a negative impact on the inclination of

minorities to vote; although, it is difficult to develop a specific estimate.

171

Id. at 5.

172

DNC v. RNC, No. 04-4186 (3d Cir. 2004) (granting en banc hearing and staying

panel's order enjoining use of caging list). While District Courts in Ohio granted preliminary

injunctions to the same effect, the Sixth Circuit overturned their orders because the opinions did

not rely on racial discrimination. Those cases both found constitutional violations from the

presence of challengers generally. See Summit County Democratic Central and Executive

Committee v. Blackwell, 388 F.3d 547 (6th Cir. 2004).

173

Miller v. Blackwell, 2004 WL 2827763 (S.D. Ohio 2004).

174

Id. at *4.

175

Id.

176

Spencer v. Blackwell, 2004 WL 2827758, (S.D. Ohio 2004).

177

Id. at *8.