Two bills have been introduced in the Ohio legislature to add a question about political party membership on the voter registration form. HB 208 has seven sponsors; see it here. It was introduced June 7.

The other bill is HB 210. See it here. It has eight sponsors. The chief difference between the two bills is that HB 210 has a more severe deadline for voters to join a party if they intend to vote in its upcoming primary. HB 210 was introduced June 13.

Both bills would provide for a write-in line, so that a voter could register into an unqualified party by writing it in.

Neither bill has made any headway so far. If either one passed, Ohio would switch from being an open primary state to a closed primary state.

The bills make no provision for a party to tell the state that it wants independent voters to be able to vote in its primary. In 1986 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that if a party wants to let independents vote in its primaries, it has that right. That case was Tashjian v Republican Party of Connecticut.

Ohio independent candidates are often challenged, on the basis that they have behaved as though they are really party members. Courts that adjudicate these disputes frequently delve into which meetings a candidate has attended, and even details about their spouses. HB 208 would end that. An “independent” would be someone who is registered as an independent.

On June 22, the U.S. Supreme Court issued four opinions, but did not release the election law case, Moore v Harper. This is the North Carolina case on whether the U.S. Constitution prohibits state courts from striking down state election laws that affect federal elections. The case began when the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution’s “free and equal” language prohibits partisan gerrymandering. The state then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that the North Carolina State Supreme Court cannot do that.

Later the membership of the North Carolina Supreme Court shifted, and that Court reconsidered its original decision and reversed it. This might mean that the U.S. Supreme Court will not issue a definitive opinion on the federal constitutional issue, but we won’t know until Moore v Harper is released.

In the past, State Supreme Courts have sometimes invalidated restrictive ballot access laws that affected federal elections. Some of these decisions are more than 125 years old. For instance, in 1895 the Illinois Supreme Court struck down a law banning write-in voting in Sanner v Patton, 40 NE 290. It would be strange if, in 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court would rule that the Illinois Supreme Court had no right to do that relative to federal elections.

Three individuals have been charged with several felonies in connection with ostensibly fraudulent petitions submitted for five of ten Republican candidates for Governor of Michigan to get on the Primary ballot in 2022. Thanks to Thomas Jones for this story link:

https://www.mlive.com/politics/2023/06/signature-collectors-face-felonies-from-scandal-that-upended-gop-governors-race.html