Two election-related bills, one proposing ballot watermarks and the other instituting weekly voter roll screening, recently faced scrutiny during a hearing in the Ohio House.Two election-related bills, one proposing ballot watermarks and the other instituting weekly voter roll screening, recently faced scrutiny during a hearing in the Ohio House. Ballot Watermarks Representative Jennifer Gross’s proposal aims to implement watermarks on ballots, a measure not currently used in any other state. Gross compares ballots to banknotes, arguing that they could “be worth hundreds of millions of dollars” and hence require enhanced security. However, her bill suggests a unique watermark for each ballot rather than a uniform design. While Gross cites a malfunctioning ballot in Williams County as a reason for implementing watermarks, a post-election audit confirmed the accuracy of the county’s results. Critics argue that Gross’s concerns are speculative and that Williams County’s challenges were related to blank ballots, not final ones with voter choices. Aaron Ockerman, Executive Director of the Ohio Association of Election Officials, expressed caution about the potential costs of ballot watermarks, estimated between $1.6 million and $4.5 million. List Maintenance Representatives Scott Wiggam and Beth Lear’s bill proposes weekly screening of voter rolls to identify discrepancies such as mismatched driver’s license or Social Security numbers, addresses, or dates of birth. Voters with unmatched information would be required to cast provisional ballots on Election Day. The bill’s proponents cite anecdotal concerns about ineligible voters and fraudulent mail-in ballot requests. However, the validity of these stories has been questioned. Election officials in Wayne County explained that the students listed in a parsonage as their address were likely given an incorrect address during a voter registration drive. The board declined to forward the case to prosecutors after investigating and finding that none of the students had voted since 2020. County boards and the Secretary of State already conduct voter roll checks regularly. The proposed bill’s key difference is the increased frequency and scope of checks, which could conflict with federal law prohibiting discriminatory voter list maintenance. The Ohio Association of Election Officials has not taken an official stance on the list maintenance proposal, acknowledging the potential labor costs but questioning its benefits.
Two potentially consequential election measures got their first hearing in the Ohio House last week, but it’s not clear that the problems these measures seek to address are actually problems in the first place.
The first proposal would require watermarks on ballots, a measure that would cost millions and that even its sponsor acknowledges no other state does. The second proposal would institute weekly screening of voter rolls. Any voter whose information doesn’t match — for example, because of a recent measure — would be required to cast a provisional ballot.
Watermarks
Rep. Jennifer Gross (Republican from West Chester) compared ballot watermarking to similar security measures used for banknotes.
“Our ballots are themselves a form of currency,” she argued. “While the U.S. Treasury Department is focused on ensuring that there are no fraudulent $100 bills circulating in our society, our ballots could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars.”
Gross’ proposal, however, does not follow the currency model of a single, uniform watermark on each ballot. Instead, her bill calls for a “unique, randomly assigned identifying image, pattern, or alphanumeric code.” The watermark in this representation would more closely resemble the ballot’s serial number than any other security feature.
To justify the watermark on the ballots, she points to the 2022 primary in Williams County. Their original ballot didn’t function properly. The board essentially went to Defcon 1, where it contracted for new ballots and also borrowed from nearby Defiance County. Ultimately, the election went off without any major problems.
But Gross speculated darkly about ballots being moved between polling stations, insisting that “in the end, voters could only know that an unknown number of ballots had been counted and a number had been given as a result. There was no way for them to know how many of them the ballots counted were legitimate ballots.”
The state-mandated post-election audit found that Williams County’s results were 100% accurate in all races officials audited.
Still, Gross claims that Williams County is alluding to the potential for “extreme ballot disorganization” and that the threat of someone using disorganization to sneak in illegal ballots is real. But all of Williams County’s challenges she points out involve the ballot — essentially a blank sheet of paper — rather than a final ballot that lists the voter’s choices.
Aaron Ockerman, executive director of the Ohio Association of Election Officials, stressed that the organization has not yet taken an official position on the bill, but he acknowledged that it is a new concept and that they are still considering “what benefits, if any, it would bring.”
He explained that counties already have “robust” systems in place to track and identify ballots for absentee and in-person voting. Ockerman also highlighted the potential costs, which legislative researchers have estimated could range between $1.6 million and $4.5 million.
The question of including an allocation was a source of confusion during the hearing. Gross insisted that an allocation is included, although it is not in the text of the bill. Democrats pressed her and the committee chairman, state Rep. Bob Peterson, R-Selina, said he would work with Gross to determine whether funding should be included.
List maintenance
State Reps. Scott Wiggam, R-Wayne County, and Beth Lear, R-Galena, want county boards to check their voter rolls weekly for discrepancies. Among the issues they want to highlight are mismatched driver’s license numbers, Social Security numbers, addresses or dates of birth. Under the bill, if any of these discrepancies are not addressed, the voter would be forced to cast a provisional ballot on Election Day.
“We need to provide Ohioans with greater certainty that those who vote in our elections are legally allowed to vote here and that they are, in fact, the people registered in our system,” Lear emphasized.
County boards and the Secretary of State already conduct similar checks on a regular basis, and when boards find problems, they send out notices asking voters to confirm information. When voters are placed in this “confirmation status,” they are essentially on probation — the registration is still there, but they have to verify some aspect of it before they cast their ballot.
The most important change in the bill is the frequency of those checks and the insistence on a valid driver’s license or Social Security number. Until 2023, voters could specify an alternative, such as a utility bill, when registering to vote.
The representatives are citing electoral horror stories to justify the changes.
Wiggam described several students in Wayne County who listed a church parsonage as their home address, despite living on the campus of Wooster College. He acknowledged that they were already in “confirmation status,” but stressed “why weren’t these individuals on provisional status?”
Lear described voters who were forced to vote provisionally because someone else had requested a mail-in ballot with their name on it.
But those stories are questionable at best. Lear acknowledged that she got her story secondhand from a pollster. She did not respond to follow-up emails requesting more information. Delaware County elections officials also have not responded.
In Wayne County, meanwhile, election officials have explained the parsonage and several Wooster College residence halls are located on the same street. A voter registration drive likely provided students with an incorrect address when they filled out their forms. After Wiggam raised the alarm about the students in 2023, the board investigated and declined to forward the case to the public prosecutor. They discovered that none of them had voted since the 2020 primary and that all had since graduated.
Moreover, Wiggam’s frustration with the confirmation status is baffling. He argued that “the crucial point” is that those voters remain “fully qualified voters” who can sign petitions or request mail-in ballots and have their names appear in the ballot book on Election Day.
But that doesn’t mean they’re in the clear. If they showed up at the polls, they’d still have to vote provisionally, and if they requested an absentee ballot, a similar process would play out on the front end. The board wouldn’t send out a ballot immediately; they’d first send out a confirmation email to verify the voter’s information.
While Wiggam and Lear’s proposal essentially simply increases the frequency and scope of existing verifications, in practice it would likely conflict with federal law.
Legislative researchers note that under the National Voter Registration Act, any list maintenance process must be uniform and nondiscriminatory. But the bill treats address discrepancies that arise through the BMV and the National Change of Address Service differently.
The same federal law prohibits any program that “systematically removes the names of ineligible voters” within 90 days of an election. If you continue to run the bill’s weekly list-maintenance program during that time, you risk a lawsuit.
The Ohio Association of Election Officials also has not taken an official position on the proposal, Ockerman said. He argued that there is “no discernible benefit” to checking voter rolls weekly, but then again, there probably isn’t any harm either, aside from the added labor costs.
This story was originally published by the Ohio Capital Journal and is republished here with permission.
