Chad Thompson v. Richard Michael DeWine
959 F.3d 804
| 6th Cir. | 2020Background
- Plaintiffs (three individuals and two organizations) sought to place constitutional amendments and municipal ordinances on Ohio’s November ballot by initiative and challenged Ohio’s ballot-access rules as-applied during the COVID-19 pandemic.
- Ohio requires petitions to have inked signatures witnessed by the circulator, a thresholds tied to turnout, and filing deadlines (125 days for constitutional amendments; 110 days for municipal ordinances).
- The district court enjoined enforcement of Ohio’s ink-signature, witness, and submission-deadline requirements (but upheld the number-of-signatures requirement), and ordered Ohio to accept electronically-signed/witnessed petitions and extended a filing deadline to July 31, 2020.
- Ohio officials moved for a stay pending appeal; Ohio’s pandemic orders expressly exempted First Amendment activity (including petition circulators) and the State later rescinded its stay-at-home order before petition deadlines.
- The Sixth Circuit applied the Anderson-Burdick framework, found the burden on plaintiffs was intermediate (not severe), concluded the State’s interests in election integrity and orderly administration likely justify the rules, and granted a stay pending appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether enforcement of Ohio’s petition rules during COVID imposed a "severe" burden triggering strict scrutiny | Pandemic and stay-at-home rules made signature collection practically impossible, so strict scrutiny applies | Ohio exempted First Amendment activity from stay orders, rescinded stay, and plaintiffs still had time/opportunities; burden is not severe | Burden is intermediate, not severe; Anderson-Burdick applies with intermediate review |
| Whether ink-signature and witness requirements and filing deadlines violate the First Amendment as-applied | Ink/witness rules and deadlines effectively prevent ballot access during pandemic and are not narrowly tailored | Rules serve compelling interests (preventing fraud, verification, orderly processing) and remain applicable during pandemic | State likely to prevail; rules survive intermediate scrutiny |
| Whether the district court exceeded its authority by ordering electronic signature acceptance and extending deadlines | Plaintiffs argued relief was necessary to protect First Amendment rights and ensure access | Such affirmative restructuring of election procedures usurps state legislative/electoral authority and risks security/confusion | District court exceeded authority in rewriting state law; federal courts should not redesign election procedures on eve of elections |
| Whether a stay pending appeal should issue | Plaintiffs argued urgency and irreparable First Amendment harm justify denying a stay | Defendants argued likelihood of success, irreparable state harm if elections altered, public interest in enforcing law | Court granted stay: movant likely to succeed, equities and public interest favor the State |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (establishes the burden-balancing approach to election regulations)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (framework distinguishing minimal, intermediate, and severe burdens on ballot access)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (four-factor stay pending appeal standard)
- Schmitt v. LaRose, 933 F.3d 628 (6th Cir. 2019) (applies Anderson-Burdick to Ohio initiative/election rules)
- Mays v. LaRose, 951 F.3d 775 (6th Cir. 2020) (consideration of all opportunities to exercise political rights in burden analysis)
- John Doe No. 1 v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186 (2010) (states’ interests in integrity of the electoral process)
- Abbott v. Perez, 138 S. Ct. 2305 (2018) (altering state-conducted elections contrary to statute causes serious, irreparable harm)
- Republican Nat’l Comm. v. Democratic Nat’l Comm., 140 S. Ct. 1205 (2020) (lower courts should ordinarily not alter election rules close to an election)
- Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) (warning against changing election rules on the eve of elections)
- Taxpayers United for Assessment Cuts v. Austin, 994 F.2d 291 (6th Cir. 1993) (upholding signature-requirement rules under ballot-access precedents)