Ohio State Conference of the National Ass'n v. Husted
768 F.3d 524
| 6th Cir. | 2014Background
- Plaintiffs, led by NAACP, challenged SB 238 and Directive 2014-17 as violating the Equal Protection Clause and the Voting Rights Act based on burdens on early in-person voting (EIP).
- SB 238 eliminated Golden Week by reducing EIP days from 35 to 28 and shifted the first EIP day to after voter registration closes; Directive 2014-17 set uniform EIP hours but curtailed evenings and non-presidential voting times.
- The district court issued a preliminary injunction, restoring EIP hours and requiring uniform, suitable hours nationwide for the 2014 general election, pending a permanent injunction ruling.
- The district court found that the measures burdened African American and low-income voters and were not adequately justified by fraud prevention, costs, or uniformity, applying Anderson-Burdick balancing.
- Defendants appealed, arguing the court should use rational basis review or that the record did not show a substantial burden; the General Assembly participated as intervenor and filed briefs as amicus.
- This court granted expedited review and ultimately affirmed the district court’s injunction, holding that Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the EP and Section 2 claims and that irreparable harm and public interest supported the injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What standard governs review of the voting restrictions? | Plaintiff argues for Anderson-Burdick balancing. | Defendants urge rational basis review or other non-scrutinized analysis. | District court properly applied Anderson-Burdick. |
| Do SB 238 and Directive 2014-17 likely violate the Equal Protection Clause? | SB 238/Directive disproportionately burden African American and lower-income voters, reducing equal opportunity. | Restrictions are justified by legitimate state interests and neutral application. | Plaintiffs likely to succeed on Equal Protection. |
| Do SB 238 and Directive 2014-17 likely violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act? | Disparate impact on protected class reduces opportunity to participate in the political process. | No proven causation linking burdens to discriminatory impact; Senate factors not dispositive. | Plaintiffs likely to succeed on Section 2 claim. |
| Do the remaining preliminary-injunction factors favor maintaining the injunction? | Irreparable harm to fundamental right to vote and public interest favor preservation of voting rights. | Injunction would harm enforcement efficiency and create potential confusion. | Irreparable harm shown; public interest favors injunction; limited harm to others. |
Key Cases Cited
- Obama for America v. Husted, 697 F.3d 423 (6th Cir. 2012) ( Anderson-Burdick balancing applied to early voting restrictions; substantial burden requires closer scrutiny)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (U.S. 1992) (establishes framework for weighing burden against state's interests in voting laws)
- Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (U.S. 2008) (discusses burden and state interests under Anderson-Burdick; division over strict scrutiny applicability)
- Gingles v. Edmisten, 478 U.S. 360 (U.S. 1986) (Senate factors for Section 2 totality-of-circumstances analysis)
- Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless v. Husted, 696 F.3d 580 (6th Cir. 2012) (discusses Anderson-Burdick approach to voting-rights challenges and Section 2 context)
- League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Brunner, 548 F.3d 463 (6th Cir. 2008) (historical overview of Ohio voting administration and EIP issues)