Joel Crookston v. Ruth Johnson
841 F.3d 396
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Joel Crookston seeks to take and post a photograph of his completed ballot (“ballot selfie”) during the November 2016 election and sued to enjoin Michigan’s long‑standing ban on exposing marked ballots and the Secretary of State’s instructions banning cameras in polling places.
- Michigan law (dating to 1891; current form since 1996) provides that if an elector shows a marked ballot to another person at a polling place the ballot is rejected and the elector may be denied the right to vote; Secretary’s instructions ban cameras in polling places (limited media exception).
- Crookston previously posted a ballot selfie in 2012; he filed suit on September 9, 2016 and moved for a preliminary injunction on September 26, 2016—weeks before the November 8 election.
- The district court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement; the State sought a stay from the Sixth Circuit pending appeal.
- The Sixth Circuit (Sutton, J.) granted the stay, emphasizing Crookston’s undue delay, the risk of disrupting an imminent election (Purcell principle), administrative burdens on ~30,000 poll workers, and the State’s interests in ballot secrecy and preventing vote‑buying/intimidation.
- Separate concurrence (Guy, J.) agreed with the stay and stressed the lack of evidentiary development and practical concerns about polling‑place delay; dissent (Cole, C.J.) would have denied the stay, finding a strong likelihood Crookston would prevail on First Amendment grounds and that administrative burdens did not outweigh voters’ rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Michigan may enforce a ban on photographing or exposing marked ballots in polling places | Crookston: ban violates First Amendment; selfie is protected expressive conduct; restriction not narrowly tailored and evidence of harms is lacking | Secretary: ban is a content‑neutral regulation safeguarding ballot secrecy, preventing vote‑buying/intimidation, and avoiding delays/distraction; longstanding rule easily applied | Stay granted — court did not decide merits but found stay appropriate given undue delay and Purcell concerns |
| Whether a preliminary injunction should issue on the eve of a major election | Crookston: immediate relief needed to protect his rights this election | Secretary: injunction so close to election would disrupt established procedures and poll worker training; plaintiff delayed litigation | Stay granted — plaintiff’s unexplained delay and risk of election‑day confusion weigh against emergency relief |
| Standard and evidence required to justify altering election procedures pre‑election | Crookston: State hasn’t shown actual present harms; prophylactic justifications insufficient; injunction appropriate | Secretary: longstanding prophylactic laws need not produce present proof of harms; Burson supports reasonable restrictions at polls | Court: recognized substantial government interests and Burson parallels; absence of factual development and proximity to election weighed against injunction |
| Whether prohibition is content‑based requiring strict scrutiny or content‑neutral requiring intermediate scrutiny | Crookston: restriction is unconstitutional under either test; fails intermediate scrutiny (not narrowly tailored) | Secretary: appears content‑neutral and reasonable to protect voting integrity and secrecy | Court: did not resolve forum/level of scrutiny; skeptical of plaintiff’s likelihood of success and found government interests weighty enough to support stay |
Key Cases Cited
- Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) (courts should avoid altering election procedures close to an election)
- Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992) (upholding electioneering restrictions near polling places; recognizing state interests in protecting voting integrity)
- Rideout v. Gardner, 838 F.3d 65 (1st Cir. 2016) (invalidated a statute targeting ballot selfies; contrasted with long‑standing general bans)
- Connection Distrib. Co. v. Holder, 557 F.3d 321 (6th Cir. 2009) (discussing content‑neutral speech regulation and forum analysis)
- Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action v. Granholm, 473 F.3d 237 (6th Cir. 2006) (stay factors for motions pending appeal)