COLUMBUS — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted a victory as it refused to hear an appeal of a decision upholding the state’s right to reject some ballots because of minor errors made by would-be voters.

The move lets stand a decision last year by the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. That ruling found a pair of homeless organizations lacked standing as private entities to challenge enforcement of law requiring voters to provide certain personal identifying information with the ballots. The Ohio Democratic Party had also joined the lawsuit.

“Today’s decision by the court brings this case to a close and reaffirms that we have a fair and well-run system of elections in Ohio,” said Mr. Husted, a Republican.

But Subodh Chandra, a Cleveland attorney for the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless and the Columbus Coalition for the Homeless, said he found it “profoundly disappointing and unfair” that Ohio and Michigan, two presidential election swing states within the 6th Circuit’s jurisdiction, would have fewer tools than swing states in other court jurisdictions to fight voter suppression.

“Secretary of State Jon Husted and Ohio’s Republicans may feel further emboldened to use trivial errors and omissions on paperwork to disenfranchise voters,” he said. “It permits a voter to be disenfranchised for writing in legible cursive rather than printing Roman letters.”

State law requires certain identifying information — such as full name, birth date, and driver’s license number or last four digits of a Social Security number — to be provided on envelopes containing an absentee ballot and provisional ballot.

A provisional ballot is cast as a last resort when questions arise about a voter’s eligibility.

“There are high rates of illiteracy and mental illness in homeless populations which leads to increased risk of trivial errors — and by trivial error I mean not material to determine the identity of the person,” Mr. Chandra said. “These are people who may transpose two digits of a Social Security number, write down the current year for the birth date, transpose the month and year, or people who write down ‘Bill’ instead of ‘William.’ ”

Such errors, he said, should not prevent voting officials from being able to identify who cast the ballot.

Husted spokesman Matt McClellan said the decision allows the secretary of state to continue to uphold the law.

“When a person goes to vote, in the case of absentee or provisional ballots, certain identifying information is required,” he said. “The more information to identify someone, the more accurate it is to confirm that voter is who they say they are.”

While the high court refused to hear an appeal in this case, it did recently agree to hear Mr. Husted’s appeal of a decision in a separate case that sided with the Northeast Coalition for the Homeless.

In that case, the 6th Circuit Court found that the process used by Mr. Husted to flag inactive voters for potential purging from the registration rolls violates the National Voting Rights Act.

Contact Jim Provance at: jprovance@theblade.com or 614-221-0496.

First Published June 20, 2017, 4:00 a.m.