Schmitt v. Ohio Sec'y of State Jon Husted
341 F. Supp. 3d 784
S.D. Ohio2018Background
- Plaintiffs Schmitt and Thompson circulated identical municipal initiatives in two Ohio villages to decriminalize marijuana (reduce fines, license consequences, and court costs to $0).
- Portage County Board of Elections rejected the initiatives, reasoning the measures dealt with administrative matters and intruded on judicial functions, and refused to certify them for the ballot.
- Plaintiffs sued in federal court and moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO) directing placement of the initiatives on the November 6, 2018 ballot; the court held a hearing and considered briefing.
- Under Ohio law, boards of elections act as gatekeepers to determine whether initiatives are legislative (proper for the ballot) or administrative (improper); rejects of administrative matters leave petitioners no statutory right of review—only discretionary mandamus in Ohio appellate courts.
- Plaintiffs asserted the lack of appellate review for rejected initiatives violates their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights; defendants argued mandamus and Ohio’s scheme are constitutionally adequate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ohio's refusal to provide de novo review for rejected municipal initiatives burdens First Amendment rights | Ohio's procedure denies meaningful review and thus imposes an unconstitutional burden on initiative-related speech and voting | Mandamus and existing Ohio review mechanisms are constitutionally sufficient to protect rights | Court: Ohio's lack of adequate review likely violates First Amendment; plaintiffs have high likelihood of success |
| Whether mandamus is an adequate remedy under the Due Process Clause | Mandamus is an extraordinary, high-burden remedy and does not substitute for de novo appellate review of First Amendment claims | Mandamus is available and provides the appropriate state remedy when warranted | Court: Mandamus is not an adequate substitute for direct review of a First Amendment right; irreparable harm exists |
| Whether plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm absent relief | Temporary deprivation of First Amendment rights (ballot access, speech, association) constitutes irreparable harm | State interest in orderly elections justifies some burdens on ballot access | Court: Even temporary denial of First Amendment rights is irreparable; a TRO is warranted |
| Balance of harms and public interest in issuing injunctive relief | No cognizable public harm from placing initiatives on ballot; protecting constitutional rights serves public interest | Injunction would interfere with Ohio's interest in regulating ballots and simplifying ballots | Court: Public interest favors relief given high likelihood of success; no substantial harm to others |
Key Cases Cited
- University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390 (1981) (district court findings on preliminary injunction not binding at trial)
- Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988) (state-created initiative process cannot unduly burden First Amendment rights)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (framework for evaluating burdens on voting-related rights)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (Anderson-Burdick balancing test for election law burdens)
- Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182 (1999) (states may regulate initiative process to protect integrity, but with limits)
- Taxpayers United for Assessment Cuts v. Austin, 994 F.2d 291 (6th Cir. 1993) (no federal right to initiative, but once created must comply with First Amendment)
- Citizens for a Better Environment v. City of Park Ridge, 567 F.2d 689 (7th Cir. 1977) (temporary deprivation of First Amendment rights constitutes irreparable harm)