Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Jon Husted
831 F.3d 382
6th Cir.2016Background
- The Libertarian Party of Ohio (LPO) challenged Ohio election laws after SB 193 voided Secretary of State directives that had previously qualified minor parties for the ballot, forcing such parties to re-qualify by petition.
- SB 193 creates two paths to minor-party status: (1) achieve three percent of the vote in the most recent statewide election; or (2) form by petition (1% of vote for governor/president, 500 signers from half the congressional districts) and, if petition-formed, nominate general-election candidates by petition rather than primary.
- In 2014, Gregory Felsoci (a private individual) filed a protest under Ohio Rev. Code § 3501.38(E)(1) challenging governor-candidate Charlie Earl’s nominating petitions; Secretary Husted adopted a hearing officer’s recommendation invalidating certain signatures, which prevented Earl from appearing on the primary ballot.
- LPO alleged (among other claims) selective enforcement of § 3501.38(E)(1) in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and that SB 193 violated Equal Protection by denying petition-formed minor parties access to primaries; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants on the selective-enforcement and Equal Protection claims and dismissed the Ohio-constitution claim as barred by Eleventh Amendment.
- On appeal, the Sixth Circuit addressed (1) whether private actors and certain Republican operatives were state actors or conspired with state officials to create state action for § 1983 purposes, and (2) whether SB 193’s exclusion of petition-formed minor parties from primaries imposes an unconstitutional burden under Anderson-Burdick.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Selective-enforcement under § 1983 (First and Fourteenth Amendments) | LPO: Republican operatives, Casey, and Secretary’s staff conspired with private protestor Felsoci to selectively enforce § 3501.38(E)(1); this joint action constitutes state action. | Husted/State: Felsoci and GOP actors are private; Casey’s acts were private; Damschroder’s contacts were routine agency responses and no evidence of conspiratorial agreement or improper influence. | Court: No state action — plaintiffs failed to show GOP, Casey, or Secretary’s officials acted under color of state law or joined a conspiracy; summary judgment for defendants affirmed. |
| Equal Protection challenge to SB 193 (denial of primaries to petition-formed minor parties) | LPO: SB 193 excludes minor parties from primaries and thus denies party membership/affiliation benefits, imposing severe burdens on associational rights. | Husted/State: SB 193 reasonably advances the important state interest in ensuring minor parties have a modicum of support; petition process reduced timing burdens identified in Blackwell. | Court: Burden not severe; state interest legitimate and sufficient under Anderson-Burdick; summary judgment for defendants affirmed. |
| Mootness of claims | LPO: Election-case exception (capable of repetition yet evading review) applies; selective-enforcement risk will recur. | Defendants: 2014 election over; some claims moot. | Court: Equal Protection claim not moot; selective-enforcement claim likewise falls within exception and remains justiciable. |
| State-law Article V §7 claim (Ohio Constitution) | LPO: SB 193 conflicts with state constitutional provision requiring nominations by primary or petition. | Husted/State: Eleventh Amendment barred federal adjudication; and state court later resolved the state-constitutional claim. | Court: State-court judgment on identical claim is final for preclusion purposes; res judicata bars LPO from pursuing Article V §7 claim here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (Sup. Ct.) (private party conducting state-regulated primary can be state actor)
- Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461 (Sup. Ct.) (private primary that functions as integral part of election process may be state action)
- Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149 (Sup. Ct.) (state-action doctrine does not reach all private political activity)
- Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431 (Sup. Ct.) (state interest in ensuring a "modicum of support" for ballot access is important)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (Sup. Ct.) (framework for assessing burdens from election regulations)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (Sup. Ct.) (degree of burden determines level of scrutiny under Anderson)
- American Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767 (Sup. Ct.) (Equal Protection does not guarantee identical nomination procedures for small and large parties)
- Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Blackwell, 462 F.3d 579 (6th Cir.) (struck down earlier Ohio ballot-access scheme as a severe burden)
- Memphis, Tenn. Area Local v. City of Memphis, 361 F.3d 898 (6th Cir.) (private persons may be liable under § 1983 if they willfully participate in joint action with state agents)