Ohio State Conference of the National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Husted
769 F.3d 385
6th Cir.2014Background
- Plaintiffs (Ohio NAACP and others) obtained a district-court preliminary injunction restoring Ohio’s prior 35‑day early in‑person (EIP) voting period and ordering additional uniform EIP hours (including Sundays and evening hours) for the 2014 general election.
- Defendants (Ohio Secretary of State Husted and Attorney General DeWine) moved for a stay of the injunction pending appeal; the district court denied that stay.
- Defendants then sought a stay from the Sixth Circuit pending expedited appeal, arguing potential voter confusion, administrative burdens, chilled communications with county Boards of Election, and legal error in the district court’s analysis.
- Plaintiffs argued Defendants failed to show irreparable harm, that the public already expected the injunction’s changes (so a stay would increase confusion), and that Boards could not be unduly burdened by implementation.
- The Sixth Circuit applied the four‑factor stay test from Nken v. Holder, focusing chiefly on (1) likelihood of success on the merits and (2) irreparable harm.
- The Sixth Circuit denied the stay: defendants did not make a strong showing of likelihood of success nor a demonstration of irreparable harm, while plaintiffs and the public would likely suffer significant confusion and harm to voter outreach if a stay were granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a stay pending appeal should issue under the Nken four‑factor test | Deny stay: defendants haven’t shown likelihood of success or irreparable harm; public already expects injunction’s changes | Grant stay: avoid last‑minute, repeated rule changes, administrative burden, chilled communications; court erred legally | Denied — Defendants failed to show strong likelihood of success or irreparable harm; plaintiffs would be harmed by added confusion |
| Whether defendants likely will succeed on appeal on VRA/Equal Protection claims | District court likely correct that SB 238 violated Section 2 and affected protected voters; plaintiffs likely to prevail | District court applied improper analyses (e.g., retrogression analogies; unequal hours order) and misapplied law | Denied — at preliminary stage defendants didn’t make a strong showing of likelihood of success |
| Whether defendants would suffer irreparable harm absent a stay | No irreparable injury shown; implementation burdens are manageable | Elections administration disruption, extra costs, and chilled Secretary‑Board communication pose irreparable harms | Denied — defendants did not demonstrate more than speculative/possible harm |
| Public‑interest and third‑party harm from issuing or denying a stay | Deny stay: stay would increase public confusion and impede voter outreach, harming turnout | Grant stay: preserves administrative smoothness and avoids multiple rapid rule changes | Denied — public interest favors denying stay because confusion and voter harm outweigh defendants’ asserted administrative concerns |
Key Cases Cited
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (stay standard and four-factor test)
- Virginian R. Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 658 (exercise of judicial discretion for stays)
- Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770 (stay factors and emphasis on first two factors)
- Obama for America v. Husted, 697 F.3d 423 (6th Cir.) (precedent on early‑voting litigation and administrative directives)