Charting Procedural Due Process and the Fundamental Right to Vote BEN F.C. WALLACE TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 647 II. PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS IN THE CONTEXT OF VOTING AND ELECTIONS .................................................................................. 651 A. Lack of Clarity from the Supreme Court .............................. 651 B. Procedural Due Process Under Mathews v. Eldridge ........ 654 C. Lower Court Rulings on Procedural Due Process in Elections ............................................................................... 655 1. Griffin and Roe: Fundamentally Unfair Election Administration ................................................................ 656 2. Courts Applying Mathews in Voting Rights Cases ........ 658 3. Rejecting Procedural Claims ......................................... 662 III. ANATOMY OF A PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS CLAIM IN VOTING ....................................................................................... 666 A. Defining and Weighing the Right(s) at Stake ....................... 666 B. Government Interests ........................................................... 669 C. The Risk of Erroneous Deprivation and the Benefits of Additional Procedures ......................................................... 670 D. Extent of Notice .................................................................... 671 E. Timing of Opportunity to Be Heard ..................................... 672 IV. GHOSTS IN THE MACHINE: SEARCHING FOR PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS IN THE ELECTORAL PROCESS ................... 673 A. Provisional and Absentee Ballots ........................................ 673 1. Provisional and Absentee Ballots .................................. 673 2. Voter Challenges and the Right to Vote by Regular Ballot .............................................................................. 677 B. Poll Worker Error and Wrong Precinct Voters ................... 678 C. Felon Disenfranchisement ................................................... 679 V. CONCLUSION: THE BENEFITS FOR VOTING RIGHTS OF EXPLORING PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS CLAIMS ....................... 681 I. INTRODUCTION Voting can be complicated. The case of Apryl Babarcik is illustrative. In November 2012, Apryl resided at 231 3rd Drive SE, in the small town of New J.D. Candidate 2016, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law. 648 OHIO STATE LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 77:3 Philadelphia, Ohio.1 On November 6th, the date of the election pitting President Obama against challenger Mitt Romney, Apryl attempted to vote at the correct polling location for her address. However, when she arrived at the polls, the local election officials insisted that she was at the incorrect voting location. The poll workers directed her to the polling location for a similar, yet incorrect address: 231 3rd Drive NE. Apryl followed the poll worker?s instructions, but because she was not in the poll book at that polling location, she was forced to vote a provisional ballot, as required under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA).2 Unbeknownst to Apryl, her ballot would not be counted. Despite the fact that she was an eligible voter in the state of Ohio and was registered at her current address, Ohio law does not permit ballots to be counted if they are cast in the wrong polling location.3 In every American election, thousands of voters like Apryl have their ballots discarded for this very same reason.4 Others have their ballots discarded because information is missing from that ballot.5 Many other Americans who have been convicted of a felony but who are eligible to vote are unable to register because they do not have proper documentation of their eligibility.6 These voters, as well as Apryl Babarcik, were deprived of their right to vote through a process that failed to protect that right. They were denied a fundamental right without being properly informed and without an opportunity to explain: they were, arguably, denied the right to vote without being provided with Due Process as guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The contours of this right are, in the context of voting in elections, not well defined. While the Supreme Court has outlined the basic standard of Procedural Due Process as requiring notice and an opportunity to be heard,7 it has never squarely (or indeed, obliquely) addressed how these requirements apply to voting.8 While the Court has consistently recognized that voting in federal elections and having that vote counted is a fundamental rightDperhaps the most fundamental right9Dand worthy of Due Process protection, the 1 EDWARD B. FOLEY, BALLOT BATTLES: THE HISTORY OF DISPUTED ELECTIONS (2016). 2 Help America Vote Act of 2002, 52 U.S.C. § 21082 (Supp. II 2014). 3 OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 3505.181 (West 2007). 4 Joshua Field et al., Uncounted Votes: The Racially Discriminatory Effects of Provisional Ballots, CTR. FOR AM. PROGRESS (Oct. 29 2014), https://www.american progress.org/issues/race/report/2014/10/29/99886/uncounted-votes/ [https://perma.cc/ZEM4- MU3W]. 5 Id. 6 See Jessie Allen, Documentary Disenfranchisement, 86 TUL. L. REV. 389, 389 (2011). 7 Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 349 (1976). 8 The Court?s seminal election administration cases have been based on general Fourteenth Amendment grounds. See infra Part II.A. 9 See infra Part III.A. 2015] PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS & THE RIGHT TO VOTE 649 process for determining when and how a voter may cast a ballot and for whether or not that ballot will be counted, are largely left with the individual states, which have plenary power over the conduct of elections.10 Regardless of what process states are constitutionally required to afford to voters, the actual process of registering, voting, administering elections, and counting ballots has become quite complex.11 Some of this complexity stems from a growing electorate; local elections officials must offer their services to a growing number of voters under the constraints of limited public resources.12 The continuous technological evolution of society adds complexity: many voters now fill out their ballots electronically or register to vote on the Internet.13 Some complexity is self-inflicted, via statute. The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) imposes requirements on states to update voters? registration and limits their ability to remove voters from the rolls.14 The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) requires states to offer provisional ballots to voters whose eligibility is in question.15 Most states require voters to present proof of identification, with some requiring state-issued photo ID.16 While some of these statutes are assets for voting rights advocates and litigators, they nevertheless add procedural wrinkles to voting and election administration that may complicate vote counting, election administration, and the essential elements of casting a ballot, with the accompanying risk that these procedures may disenfranchise eligible voters. While voting has become more complex, voting rights advocates recently lost what had been an indispensable tool in efforts to preserve the electoral franchise. The Supreme Court?s 2012 decision in Shelby County v. Holder invalidated the formula Congress used to determine which jurisdictions were required to LpreclearM changes in their voting laws with the Department of Justice.17 The decision, for the time being, ended the preclearance regime that, since 1965, had ensured that many states did not pass racially discriminatory voting laws. Following Shelby County, many states of the former Confederacy, which had been covered by the preclearance requirement, passed laws requiring photo identification in order to vote.18 This Note will present the first thorough exploration of a largely neglected 10 See U.S. CONST. art. I, § 4. 11 See THE AMERICAN VOTING EXPERIENCE: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON ELECTION ADMINISTRATION 9 (Jan. 2014) [hereinafter PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION], https://www.supportthevoter.gov/files/2014/01/Amer-Voting- Exper-final-draft-01-09-14-508.pdf [https://perma.cc/QXK3-BBZK]. 12 Id. at 10. 13 Id. at 11P13. 14 National Voter Registration Act, 52 U.S.C. § 20501 (2013). 15 Help America Vote Act of 2002, 52 U.S.C. § 21082 (Supp. II 2014). 16 Voter Identification Requirements, NAT?L CONF. ST. LEGISLATURES (Dec. 14, 2015), http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx [https://perma.cc/ 3V34-NER7] [hereinafter NCSL]. 17 Shelby Cty. v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612, 2631 (2013). 18 NCSL, supra note 16. 650 OHIO STATE LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 77:3 tool for protecting and litigating voting rights: Procedural Due Process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. This Note will argue that, in the wake of Shelby County, Procedural Due Process claims will advance the larger mission of voting rights advocates in three ways: (1) it offers an alternative basis for a claim against voting laws which are restrictive, but not necessarily discriminatory; (2) the prospect of Procedural Due Process claims may induce state and local election officials to ensure uniformity in their procedures; and (3) Procedural Due Process claims will develop a body of law that has been stunted, with the prospect that courts will begin to recognize the validity of these claims. This Note contributes to an ever-growing body of academic work that seeks to find alternative remedies for voting rights plaintiffs in the wake of Shelby County. Some writers have searched for ways to expand