Voting rights groups sue to block Ohio proof‑of‑citizenship BMV rule

(OHIO) Voting rights groups filed a federal lawsuit in August 2025 to stop an Ohio law that now requires people registering to vote at the Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) to show extra proof of U.S. citizenship. The challenge targets House Bill 54, which took effect on June 30, 2025, and replaces the long‑standing practice of allowing voters to register by signing a sworn statement under penalty of perjury. Plaintiffs say the new rules break federal law, are too vague to follow, and will block thousands of eligible Ohioans from getting on the rolls.

Red Wine & Blue and the Ohio Alliance for Retired Americans are among the plaintiffs. They argue that House Bill 54 violates the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), especially Sections 5 and 8, by loading the BMV process with hurdles that go beyond federal standards and are not applied the same way across the state. They also say the Ohio law is unconstitutionally vague under the First and Fourteenth Amendments because it does not clearly explain what proof counts, leaving people guessing and BMV staff to make case‑by‑case calls.

Why the Lawsuit Matters

The BMV is a major gateway to civic participation. Nearly 30% of Ohio voters register through the BMV, according to the complaint. The new law requires a citizenship database check and extra documents right at that window.

If people don’t have the paperwork on hand—like a passport, a certified birth record with matching name, or other proof—their registration could stall. Plaintiffs warn that many eligible voters simply don’t keep these records in their wallets.

Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, a Republican, defends the Ohio law as a common‑sense step to protect election integrity and keep noncitizens from registering. He has described the lawsuit as a push by activists to disrupt a secure system and has said Ohio already runs accessible and secure elections. LaRose says he expects the state to win, pointing to past courtroom battles where Ohio’s election policies withstood similar challenges.

Policy Details and Legal Claims

At the heart of the case is a tension between federal and state rules. The NVRA set a national floor for voter registration at motor vehicle agencies. Plaintiffs say Ohio’s new rule rises above that floor by requiring more than an attestation of citizenship, which the federal form treats as enough when given under penalty of perjury.

They argue the state cannot add demands that block or chill registration at the BMV, especially when standards are unclear.

Key legal and policy points:
– Plaintiffs claim House Bill 54 violates NVRA Sections 5 and 8.
– They assert the law is unconstitutionally vague under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
– The complaint contends the law creates inconsistent enforcement across BMV locations.

The complaint highlights groups who may be hit hardest:
– Women who changed their names due to marriage or divorce and whose identity documents do not match across records
– Young voters who may not have ready access to birth records or passports
– Seniors who may have trouble retrieving or paying for replacement documents
– Low‑resource voters who may face time, cost, and travel barriers to secure papers

Plaintiffs call the guidance on what qualifies as “acceptable proof” confusing. They say the law, and how it has been rolled out, invites inconsistent decisions from BMV counters across Ohio. Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, they argue, a law that is vague and inconsistently enforced risks unequal treatment and can chill lawful activity—in this case, registering to vote.

State officials counter that policy clarity will improve as implementation continues, and stress the aim is narrow: prevent noncitizens from joining the rolls. The state also notes that registration remains open through other methods, and that most eligible citizens possess acceptable proof if asked.

Implementation Questions and Human Impact

The practical issues come down to timing, access, and names on paper.

A college student renewing a driver’s license who wants to register at the BMV might not have a passport or certified birth record with them. A recently divorced grandmother may have a driver’s license in her prior name, while her birth certificate shows a name from decades ago. If front‑line staff can’t reconcile those records, the registration can fail at the counter, even when the person is a citizen.

The lawsuit says this is exactly what the NVRA was designed to avoid—turning the BMV into a chokepoint where eligible citizens face added requirements. According to the filing, the change could lower registration at one of the most important access points in Ohio, especially for first‑time registrants who interact with the BMV for licenses and ID cards.

Plaintiffs’ requested relief:
1. Preliminary injunction to stop enforcement of the proof‑of‑citizenship requirement at the BMV while the case proceeds.
2. Maintain the longstanding practice that a sworn attestation under penalty of perjury is sufficient at the BMV.
3. Rely on existing list‑maintenance processes and post‑registration checks to address concerns about noncitizen registrations.

For readers seeking the federal framework behind this challenge, the U.S. Department of Justice’s overview of the NVRA explains motor‑voter rules and state obligations under federal law. See the DOJ’s summary here: National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).

State Response and What Comes Next

Secretary LaRose’s office frames House Bill 54 as a targeted safeguard. In public statements, he has described Ohio as a leader in “accessible and secure elections” and cast the case as politics, not policy. The state’s position is:

• Asking for proof at the BMV is a fair check to ensure only citizens vote.
• Any initial inconsistencies can be handled through training and guidance for BMV staff.
• Registration remains available through other methods beyond the BMV.

The case is now in federal court, with the suit filed in August 2025 and no ruling yet. Plaintiffs want a preliminary injunction to block the law quickly, arguing that every BMV visit under the new rules can cost eligible citizens a chance to register. State officials oppose any halt and say courts have upheld Ohio processes before.

The timeline may include:
– Preliminary hearings
– Discovery
– Motions and possible appeals

All of which could stretch into the election cycle, increasing pressure to clarify rules quickly.

Key Facts at a Glance

Important takeaway: Advocates stress the change affects everyday decisions—registering at a routine license visit versus facing a return trip to find decades‑old papers—while state leaders emphasize securing voter rolls to include citizens only.

For ongoing case updates, voting rights groups point readers to legal trackers following the Ohio Proof of Citizenship Requirement Challenge. For broader immigration‑and‑citizenship documentation context that often overlaps with state motor‑vehicle systems, VisaVerge.com reports on how identity documents and database checks affect people’s lives.