103 F.4th 420
6th Cir.2024Background
- Ohio initiative process: petitioners must submit proposed constitutional amendment, a summary, and 1,000 qualified signatures to the Ohio Attorney General, who must certify that the summary is a "fair and truthful" statement before petitioners may circulate the ~400,000 signatures needed to qualify for the ballot.
- Plaintiffs (Ohio voters/initiative committee) submitted their amendment, summary, and 1,000 signatures multiple times; Attorney General David Yost refused to certify the summary on at least six occasions.
- Plaintiffs filed a mandamus petition in the Ohio Supreme Court and moved to expedite; the court denied expedition and the state action stalled (plaintiffs later voluntarily dismissed the state petition while Yost's motion to dismiss remained pending).
- Plaintiffs sued in federal district court asserting First and Fourteenth Amendment claims (facial and as-applied) that § 3519.01, as enforced by Yost without timely judicial review, burdens core political speech and ballot access; district court denied preliminary injunctive relief.
- Sixth Circuit (majority) reversed: held plaintiffs likely to succeed on their as-applied First Amendment claim because Yost’s review and the lack of timely state-court review severely burdened core political speech (Grant line), applied strict scrutiny, and enjoined Yost from enforcing § 3519.01 against these plaintiffs—ordering Yost to transmit the amendment and most recent summary to the ballot board.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing (injury, traceability, redressability) | Yost’s repeated refusals combined with lack of timely state-court review continuously burden plaintiffs’ core political speech and advocacy; injunctive relief enjoining enforcement of §3519.01 would redress it. | Injury is traceable to Ohio Supreme Court schedule and legislature; enjoining Yost cannot secure timely state-court review or guarantee ballot access, so no redressability. | Plaintiffs have standing: injury is ongoing, fairly traceable to AG’s enforcement, and redressable by prospective injunction preventing enforcement as-applied. |
| Eleventh Amendment / Ex parte Young | Relief sought is prospective (stop future enforcement of §3519.01 against plaintiffs) so Ex parte Young permits suit against AG in his official capacity. | Plaintiffs seek (effectively) relief that cannot remedy the true injury (state-court timing); Ex parte Young does not apply. | Ex parte Young applies: alleged ongoing violation and prospective relief fit the exception; sovereign-immunity defense rejected here. |
| First Amendment framework / level of scrutiny (Grant vs Anderson-Burdick) | AG’s unchecked review of summaries and denial without timely review targets “core political speech” (petition circulation/summary framing) and imposes a severe burden requiring strict scrutiny (Grant line). | This is election mechanics; Anderson-Burdick (balancing) or intermediate scrutiny applies (Schmitt), not strict scrutiny under Grant. | The court applied a hybrid approach: Anderson-Burdick framework while treating the limitation as affecting Grant-defined core political speech, finding a severe burden and applying strict scrutiny as-applied. |
| Narrow tailoring / preliminary injunction factors | No less-restrictive means were used: AG declined to seek or secure timely state-court resolution; §3519.01 as applied permits perpetual pre-circulation veto—less-restrictive alternatives exist (e.g., expedited review, post-signature review). Irreparable harm to First Amendment rights; public interest favors injunction. | AG argues §3519.01 protects voter education, fraud deterrence, and integrity; ten-day certification and right to state-court review suffice; injunction would risk misleading summaries and upset state mechanisms. | Court held state interests compelling but §3519.01 (as applied) not narrowly tailored; injunction warranted—irreparable First Amendment injury presumed; balance and public interest favored plaintiffs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988) (petition-circulation speech is core political speech deserving heightened protection)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (balancing test for burdens on ballot-access rights)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (clarifies level of scrutiny under Anderson balancing)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing framework)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (prospective injunctive relief against state officials for ongoing federal-law violations)
- Schmitt v. LaRose, 933 F.3d 628 (6th Cir. 2019) (Ohio initiative-review procedure; intermediate burden and mandamus review discussion)
- Citizens for Tax Reform v. Deters, 518 F.3d 375 (6th Cir. 2008) (applying Grant in initiative-context restrictions)
- Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Blackwell, 462 F.3d 579 (6th Cir. 2006) (consider combined effect of ballot-access regulations)
- League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Brunner, 548 F.3d 463 (6th Cir. 2008) (ongoing election-administration harms can support Ex parte Young relief)
- Boler v. Earley, 865 F.3d 391 (6th Cir. 2017) (prospective equitable relief appropriate where past actions cause continuing constitutional harm)