John Russell v. Allison Lundergan-Grimes
769 F.3d 919
6th Cir.2014Background
- Kentucky statute KRS § 117.235(3) barred campaigning within 300 feet of any entrance to a building housing a voting machine if the entrance is unlocked and used by voters on election day.
- The district court held the statute facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment and issued a permanent statewide injunction on October 14, 2014, three weeks before the November election.
- Kentucky moved this court under Fed. R. App. P. 8(a) for a stay pending appeal of the district court’s injunction.
- The Sixth Circuit considered the four stay factors: likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm to the movant, harm to others, and the public interest.
- The court found close questions on the merits (300-foot zone between upheld 100-foot and struck-down 500-foot precedents) and noted serious state administrative burdens and voter-confusion risks if no buffer applied right before an election.
- The court also recognized a significant First Amendment interest where enforcement would reach political expression on private property and noted prior authority requiring private-property exemptions for such zones.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether KRS § 117.235(3) is facially constitutional under the First Amendment | Russell: statute unconstitutionally restricts political speech near polling places (facial and as-applied) | Kentucky: 300-foot buffer is a permissible regulation to protect orderly elections; Eleventh Amendment issues also raised | Stay granted in part: close merits question supports interim enforcement of buffer in public fora and polling-place property, but injunction remains as to private property enforcement |
| Whether a stay pending appeal should issue given election timing | Russell: immediate injunction needed to protect speech rights (esp. on private property) | Kentucky: irreparable harm and chaos if forced to run election without any buffer days before election | Stay granted in part: avoid last-minute change; protect orderly election administration by allowing enforcement against campaign activity in public forum/polling-place property |
| Whether private-property political speech is covered by the statute | Russell: statute cannot constitutionally reach activity on private property (as-applied) | Kentucky: seeks ability to enforce uniformly | Held: injunction remains in effect as to private property; state cannot enforce statute against private-property speech pending appeal |
| Whether statewide, total injunction should remain | Russell: facial injunction appropriate | Kentucky: nationwide/statewide injunction disruptive and premature close to election | Held: partial stay—state may enforce buffer against public-forum and polling-place property activity; facial injunction continues to bar enforcement on private property pending appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992) (upheld a 100-foot campaign-speech buffer around polling places as constitutional)
- Anderson v. Spear, 356 F.3d 651 (6th Cir. 2004) (struck down a 500-foot buffer as unconstitutional; emphasized private-property exemption)
- Mich. Coal. of Radioactive Material Users, Inc. v. Griepentrog, 945 F.2d 150 (6th Cir. 1991) (articulated four-factor stay test under Fed. R. App. P. 8)
- Service Employees Int’l Union Local 1 v. Husted, 698 F.3d 341 (6th Cir. 2012) (cautioned against last-minute injunctions that change election procedures)
- City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43 (1994) (protected homeowner speech from broad sign restrictions)
- Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc., 525 U.S. 182 (1999) (recognized need for reasonable election regulations to ensure fair and orderly elections)