John Russell v. Allison Lundergan-Grimes, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 6977

Plaintiff John Russell (and his business) placed and displayed political signs on business property ~150 feet from a Cold Spring, KY polling place; deputies removed signs on prior Election Days under Ky. Rev. Stat. § 117.235(3).
§ 117.235(3) creates a 300-foot no-electioneering buffer from any entrance to a building housing voting machines; the State Board of Elections has a narrow administrative exception for temporary bumper stickers.
Russell sued state election officials and the Attorney General under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging the statute violates the First Amendment (facial and as-applied).
The district court denied motions to dismiss, held a bench trial, found the statute unconstitutional, and entered a permanent injunction; this Court granted expedited appeal and a partial stay for the 2014 election.
The Sixth Circuit considered threshold jurisdictional issues (Eleventh Amendment and Article III standing) and the merits under the Supreme Court’s Burson framework and this Court’s prior Anderson decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Eleventh Amendment bars suit against state officials	Russell: Ex parte Young allows injunctive relief; officials have enforcement connection	Defendants: Sovereign immunity shields official-capacity suits	Held: Eleventh Amendment does not bar suit; Ex parte Young applies to AG, Secretary of State, and State Board officials
Article III standing for pre-enforcement challenge	Russell: credible, imminent threat of prosecution based on past removals and AG authority	Defendants: no concrete threat; jurisdiction lacking	Held: Russell has Article III standing (fear of prosecution reasonably founded; past enforcement supports threat)
Whether §117.235(3) satisfies First Amendment strict scrutiny (narrow tailoring)	Russell: 300-ft zone is overbroad and not narrowly tailored; bans speech on private and public property	State: compelling interest in preventing fraud/intimidation justifies buffer; deference to election regulation	Held: Statute fails Burson/Anderson narrow-tailoring requirement; State offered no adequate justification for zone larger than Burson’s 100-ft safe harbor
Whether statute is facially invalid / overbroad	Russell: statute chills substantial protected political speech across area and on private property	State: statute is a permissible, viewpoint-neutral election regulation	Held: Statute is facially invalid as overbroad (prohibits substantially more speech than necessary and fails private-property exemption requirement)

Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992) (upholding 100-foot polling-place buffer as balancing free speech and preventing voter intimidation)
Anderson v. Spear, 356 F.3d 651 (6th Cir. 2004) (invalidating a 500-foot Kentucky buffer and requiring private-property exemption)
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (permits injunctive suits against state officials for prospective relief to stop ongoing constitutional violations)
Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (official-capacity suits are suits against the State for Eleventh Amendment purposes)
Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452 (1974) (pre-enforcement First Amendment challenges permitted where threat of prosecution is credible)
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 134 S. Ct. 2334 (2014) (past enforcement supports a credible threat of future enforcement for standing)
Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) (political speech restrictions subject to strict scrutiny)
Crawford v. Marion Cnty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (recognizing burdens on voting may be permissible when not severe and when protecting election integrity)