Obama for America v. Jon Husted
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 20821
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- Ohio law restricts in-person early voting for nonmilitary voters to the Friday 6:00 p.m. deadline while military/overseas voters have later or different deadlines; this created a three-day window during which nonmilitary voters could not vote in person before Election Day.
- Legislation in 2011 created conflicting deadlines (HB 194) and then HB 224 attempted to fix them, but a referendum suspended its effects for 2012; later SB 295 repealed HB 194, leaving inconsistent deadlines in place.
- State argued the discrepancy burdened local boards and needed to accommodate military voters; plaintiffs argued the burden on nonmilitary voters violated equal protection.
- District court granted a preliminary injunction, holding § 3509.03 violated equal protection to the extent it created disparate nonmilitary voting restrictions; injunction restored in-person early voting for nonmilitary voters during the three days prior to Election Day.
- Secretary Husted issued Directive 2012-35 restricting hours during the final weeks, including weekends, which compounded the burden on nonmilitary voters; district court’s injunction preserved the status quo ante.
- This appeal affirms the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction and clarifies that the remedy restores nonmilitary in-person early voting during the final three days, without mandating new hours.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Anderson-Burdick balancing applies to the voting restriction | Plaintiffs burden on voting requires balancing | State argues rational basis suffices given nonmilitary impact | Anderson-Burdick balancing applies |
| Whether Ohio § 3509.03 violates Equal Protection | Nonmilitary voters are burdened without sufficiently weighty justifications | Justifications (administrative burden and military accommodations) justify some burden | Likely to succeed on the merits; statute violates equal protection as implemented |
| Whether the district court correctly granted a preliminary injunction | Injunction preserves the right to vote for nonmilitary voters | Injunction overly broad and disrupts administration | District court’s injunction affirmed; remedy restores status quo ante |
| Whether the remedy correctly restores voting rights without imposing new duties on boards | Restore in-person voting hours for three days when previously available | Boards not mandated to add hours; discretion to administer elections preserved | Remedy appropriate; districts retain discretion; nonmilitary voting restored in three-day window |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (flexible Anderson-Burdick balancing for voting restrictions)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (weigh burden on voting rights against state interests)
- Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (integrates equal protection with Burdick balancing in voting cases)
- McDonald v. Bd. of Election Comm’rs, 394 U.S. 802 (1969) (rational-basis scrutiny for absentee-ballot classifications with no burden on right to vote)
- Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279 (1992) (standard for weighty interests in election regulation)
- Harper v. Va. Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966) (fundamental right to vote requires close scrutiny of restrictions)