Service Employees International Union Local 1 v. Husted
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 22417
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- Ohio and the Secretary seek a stay pending appeal of the district court’s October 26, 2012 order directing counting of wrong-place/wrong-precinct provisional ballots in the November 6, 2012 election.
- Sixth Circuit previously affirmed the district court’s August 27, 2012 injunction directing counting of right-place/wrong-precinct ballots arising from poll-worker error; it did not decide about wrong-place ballots.
- Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for a preliminary injunction on October 17, 2012 seeking counting of wrong-place ballots; district court granted it after a hearing.
- The Secretary and Ohio moved for a stay under Fed. R. App. P. 8(a); four-factor test applies (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, harm to others, public interest).
- The court concludes Ohio and Secretary will more likely than not demonstrate the plaintiffs failed to show strong likelihood of success on the merits and that the public and administration interests favor a stay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood of success on merits | Plaintiffs seek counting of wrong-place ballots as constitutionally required. | State interests and burdens differ; district court erred in treating burdens identically to right-place ballots. | Plaintiffs unlikely to show a strong likelihood of success on merits. |
| Irreparable harm to movants | Without counting, voters are irreparably harmed by poll-worker errors. | No irreparable harm or that harms are outweighed by public/admin interests. | Factors weighing in favor of stay; movants bear burden but irreparable harm shown to be outweighed by public interest. |
| Harm to others/public interest | Staying would undermine voters’ rights and election administration integrity. | Last-minute changes disrupt voting process and undermine orderly administration. | Public interest supports staying the district court’s order to maintain orderly election administration. |
| Balance of hardships | Counting wrong-place ballots is necessary to avoid disenfranchisement. | Changes close to election disrupts and burdens state’s precinct-based system. | Hardships favor the stay. |
Key Cases Cited
- Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2006) (avoid last-minute election rule changes due to confusion)
- Six Clinics Holding Corp., II v. Cafcard Sys., Inc., 119 F.3d 393 (6th Cir. 1997) (burden on movant in preliminary injunction contexts)
- Overstreet v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Gov’t, 305 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2002) (four-factor stay/ injunction test balancing considerations)
- Michigan Coal. of Radioactive Material Users, Inc. v. Gripentrog, 945 F.2d 150 (6th Cir. 1991) (these factors are interrelated considerations rather than prerequisites)
- Coal. to Defend Affirmative Action v. Granholm, 473 F.3d 237 (6th Cir. 2006) (assessing likelihood of success and related injunctive standards)