Howard Hawkins v. Mike DeWine, 968 F.3d 603

Plaintiffs include presidential independent candidates Howie Hawkins and Dario Hunter (need 5,000 in-person signatures by Aug. 5, 2020) and organizers seeking to form the Green Party (need signatures equal to 1% of 2018 gubernatorial vote by June 30, 2020).
Ohio law requires petition signatures signed in ink and witnessed by the circulator, i.e., collected in person.
Ohio COVID-19 orders (Mar. 12, Mar. 17, Mar. 22) restricted mass gatherings and imposed a stay-at-home rule; each order contained an exception for First Amendment activity; an April 30 order later explicitly exempted petition circulators.
Plaintiffs alleged the pandemic interrupted their signature drives but did not specify how many signatures had been collected when efforts halted.
Plaintiffs sought injunction relief and ballot placement; the district court dismissed the complaint and denied preliminary relief; plaintiffs appealed.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed, applying Anderson-Burdick balancing and relying on its prior decision in Thompson v. DeWine.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ohio’s application of in-person signature requirements together with COVID orders made ballot-access laws unconstitutional as applied	Pandemic orders made in-person collection infeasible, converting otherwise constitutional rules into unconstitutional burdens	State has interests in orderly elections, preventing fraud, verifying signatures, and meeting administrative deadlines that justify requirements	Intermediate burden; State interests outweigh burden; dismissal affirmed
Whether COVID orders’ First Amendment exemptions were unconstitutionally vague	Exemptions (Mar. 12–22) were vague or "overshadowed" by social-distancing requirements, creating unconstitutional uncertainty	Orders explicitly exempt First Amendment activity and petition circulation is core political speech; Thompson addressed similar arguments	Court rejected plaintiffs’ vagueness contention and relied on Thompson; did not find a viable vagueness claim

Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (U.S. 1992) (Anderson-Burdick balancing for election regulations)
Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (U.S. 1983) (test for burdens on associational and ballot-access rights)
Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc., 525 U.S. 182 (U.S. 1999) (petition circulation is core political speech)
Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (U.S. 1988) (strong First Amendment protection for petition circulation)
Thompson v. DeWine, 959 F.3d 804 (6th Cir. 2020) (Sixth Circuit: Ohio COVID orders + ballot rules impose intermediate burden; State interests prevail)
Schmitt v. LaRose, 933 F.3d 628 (6th Cir. 2019) (applying Anderson-Burdick framework)
Jolivette v. Husted, 694 F.3d 760 (6th Cir. 2012) (State interest in avoiding overcrowded ballots)
Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279 (U.S. 1992) (strict scrutiny when severe burdens on associational rights are shown)
Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (U.S. 1974) (recognizing need for substantial regulation of elections)