Comm. to Impose Term Limits on the Ohio Supreme Court v. Ohio Ballot Bd.
885 F.3d 443
6th Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiffs (a committee, its three members, and a petitioner-signatory) submitted a single initiative petition proposing two Ohio Constitutional amendments: (1) term limits for Ohio Supreme Court justices, and (2) a requirement that laws apply equally to members and employees of the Ohio General Assembly.
- Ohio law requires initiative petitions to contain only one proposed constitutional amendment; if more than one is present the Ohio Ballot Board must divide the petition into separate initiatives. See Ohio Rev. Code § 3505.062(A)–3519.01(A).
- The Committee submitted the petition (with 1,573 signatures) to the Attorney General; the Board reviewed it and split it into two separate initiatives. Plaintiffs sued, alleging the single-subject rule and the Board’s actions violated the First Amendment.
- The district court dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiffs appealed, arguing the statute and Board action are content-based restrictions on core political speech that must satisfy strict scrutiny.
- The Sixth Circuit reviewed de novo, concluded Ohio’s single-subject rule is content neutral, applied the Anderson–Burdick balancing framework, and held the rule is a minimally burdensome, viewpoint-neutral regulation justified by important state interests (preventing logrolling, avoiding voter confusion, promoting informed decisionmaking).
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal and rejected Plaintiffs’ procedural argument that Anderson–Burdick could not be applied at the motion-to-dismiss stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ohio’s single-subject rule is a content-based restriction on speech | The rule is content-based and targets core political speech, so strict scrutiny applies | The rule is content-neutral, applying to all initiatives regardless of topic; thus it is subject to less-searching review | Not content-based; rule is content-neutral (no strict scrutiny) |
| If content-neutral, whether the rule unconstitutionally burdens First Amendment rights | Even if neutral, the rule unconstitutionally restricts political speech and ballot access | The rule is a minimal, nondiscriminatory burden justified by important state interests (preventing logrolling, voter confusion, aiding informed choice) | Under Anderson–Burdick, the state’s interests justify the minimal burden; rule is constitutional |
| Validity of Board’s statutory duty to split multi-subject petitions (Ohio Rev. Code § 3505.062(A)) | Board’s actions implementing the statute violate the First Amendment | The statute and Board action implement a constitutional, neutral single-subject requirement and are lawful | Statute and Board action do not violate the First Amendment; upheld |
| Whether Anderson–Burdick is inappropriate at motion-to-dismiss stage | Anderson–Burdick is fact-intensive and cannot be resolved on 12(b)(6) | The legal deficiencies in Plaintiffs’ claims permit dismissal as a matter of law | Applying Anderson–Burdick at motion-to-dismiss was proper here; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182 (1999) (states have leeway to regulate initiative processes; cited favorably for single-subject rules)
- Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015) (defines content-based regulation of speech)
- McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464 (2014) (statute not content-based where enforcement depends on where, not what, is said)
- League of Women Voters of California v. FCC, 468 U.S. 364 (1984) (example of facially content-based restriction)
- PEST Comm. v. Miller, 626 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2010) (upholding a state single-subject rule)
- Biddulph v. Mortham, 89 F.3d 1491 (11th Cir. 1996) (upholding Florida single-subject requirement)
- Campbell v. Buckley, 203 F.3d 738 (10th Cir.) (upholding Colorado single-subject rule)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (part of Anderson–Burdick balancing framework for election regulations)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (framework applying varying levels of scrutiny to ballot-access and election regulations)