Committee to Impose Term Limits on the Ohio Supreme Court & to Preclude Special Legal Status for Members & Employees of the Ohio General Assembly v. Ohio Ballot Board, 275 F. Supp. 3d 849

Background

Plaintiffs (an unincorporated committee, its three members, and a signatory) submitted a single preliminary initiative to amend two separate provisions of the Ohio Constitution (term limits for Ohio Supreme Court judges; equal application of laws to legislators/employees).
Ohio law requires a preliminary petition filed with the Attorney General (1,000 signatures, full text, summary); the Attorney General certifies the summary and signature sufficiency, then the Ohio Ballot Board must determine within 10 days whether the petition contains only one proposed amendment.
The Attorney General certified Plaintiffs’ petition and referred it to the Ohio Ballot Board; the Board met and split the submission into two separate petitions pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code § 3505.062(A).
Plaintiffs sued the Ballot Board members and the Ohio Attorney General, alleging: (1) First Amendment violation (content-based regulation/prior restraint/unreasonable burden), (2) procedural due process violation for lack of individualized notice of the Board meeting, and (3) separation-of-powers violation because some Board members are legislators.
The district court denied Plaintiffs’ TRO, then granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss: First Amendment and Due Process claims dismissed with prejudice; separation-of-powers claim dismissed without prejudice for Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
First Amendment challenge to Ohio’s separate-petitions (single-subject) rule	The Board’s splitting is a content-based, speech-restrictive act that doubles signature-gathering burdens, triggers strict scrutiny, and functions as a prior restraint	The rule is a content-neutral, election-mechanics regulation that does not directly restrict core one-on-one petition circulation; at most it imposes a modest burden justified by important state interests	Court: Rule is content-neutral and not a severe burden; Anderson-Burdick balancing applies and Ohio’s interests (preventing confusion/logrolling; voter clarity) justify the rule — First Amendment claim dismissed
Due Process (lack of individualized advance notice of Board meeting)	Plaintiffs lacked adequate notice of the November 14, 2016 meeting; the Board’s meeting and division of the petition were therefore void	Eleventh Amendment bars retroactive relief; public notice (press release) satisfied Ohio’s public-notice requirement; individualized notice is available on request and fee; Plaintiffs did not request it	Court: Claim seeking to void past action is barred by Eleventh Amendment; no plausible prospective injunctive claim pleaded and Plaintiffs failed to allege they requested individualized notice — Due Process claim dismissed
Separation of powers (legislators serving on Ballot Board)	Board members who are legislators performed an executive/administrative function to split the petition, violating state separation-of-powers	State defendants assert sovereign immunity and challenge jurisdiction	Court: Separation-of-powers claim alleges state-law injury and is barred by the Eleventh Amendment; claim dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction

Key Cases Cited

Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Found., Inc., 525 U.S. 182 (1999) (states have leeway to regulate initiative mechanics; single-subject-like rules do not necessarily trigger strict scrutiny)
Biddulph v. Mortham, 89 F.3d 1491 (11th Cir. 1996) (upholding Florida single-subject requirement; refusal of cert noted by Supreme Court)
Pest Committee v. Miller, 626 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2010) (single-subject requirement is not a direct regulation of core political speech and does not impose a severe First Amendment burden)
Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Husted, 751 F.3d 403 (6th Cir. 2014) (applying Anderson-Burdick balancing to ballot-access regulations)
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (federal courts may issue prospective equitable relief against state officers to end ongoing violations of federal law)
Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (Eleventh Amendment bars suits against state agencies absent waiver)