461 F.Supp.3d 712
S.D. Ohio2020Background
- Plaintiffs (local initiative proponents and two statewide amendment committees) sought to qualify measures for the November 3, 2020 ballot but were prevented from gathering required in‑person "wet" signatures after Ohio's COVID‑19 emergency orders and stay‑at‑home restrictions.
- Ohio law (Constitution and Rev. Code) requires ink signatures, a circulator witness affidavit, county/geographic distribution and numeric signature thresholds, and early filing deadlines (July 1/approx. July 16 for 2020).
- Plaintiffs sued seeking as‑applied relief: either placement on the ballot or modification of requirements (electronic signatures, reduced counts, extended deadlines). State officials refused unilateral modification.
- The Court (applying Sixth Circuit precedent) held that the combination of strict enforcement and the pandemic created a severe First Amendment burden and applied strict scrutiny to the challenged rules as applied to these plaintiffs.
- The Court enjoined enforcement of the ink‑signature and witness requirements (as applied to the Thompson, OFSE, and OFRW plaintiffs), enjoined the relevant filing deadlines for those plaintiffs, ordered the State to accept electronically‑signed/witnessed petitions under the OFSE/OFRW proposed plans, and extended OFSE/OFRW’s submission deadline to July 31, 2020; numerical/geographic signature thresholds were left intact. Relief is limited to these plaintiffs and the Nov. 3, 2020 election.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicable framework | Anderson‑Burdick governs election‑law burdens on petition circulation; pandemic made burdens severe so strict scrutiny applies | Defendants: rules are neutral mechanics that do not implicate core First Amendment rights; Meyer or rational‑basis applies | Court: Anderson‑Burdick applies; Sixth Circuit precedent requires it; severe burden found, so strict scrutiny warranted |
| Ink signature & witness requirements | Wet‑ink + witnessed circulation effectively bans petitioning during pandemic (no safe in‑person alternative); exacting/strict scrutiny fails | State: ink/witnesses prevent fraud; preserving signature authenticity is a compelling interest | Held unconstitutional as applied; enforcement enjoined for named plaintiffs; Court ordered acceptance of electronic alternatives under plaintiffs’ proposed plans |
| Numeric & geographic signature thresholds | Pandemic impeded ability to meet numeric/geographic thresholds by deadline | State: thresholds protect ballot integrity, prevent frivolous/overcrowded ballots; compelling state interest | Court: thresholds survive; compelling interest upheld and no reduction ordered (but other relief narrows the practical burden) |
| Filing deadlines & remedy | Deadlines, combined with pandemic and ink/witness rules, cause virtual exclusion; relief: accept electronic signatures and extend deadlines | State: deadlines necessary for orderly verification; reopening reduces burden | Held: deadlines enjoined as applied to these plaintiffs; State ordered to accept electronic petitions from OFSE/OFRW and OFSE/OFRW deadline extended to July 31, 2020; State to propose adjustments for Thompson plaintiffs by court deadline |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (establishes balancing framework for election‑law burdens)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (clarifies level of scrutiny depends on burden severity)
- Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988) (exacting scrutiny for restrictions that suppress petition circulation)
- Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc., 525 U.S. 182 (1999) (states may regulate initiative mechanics but with First Amendment limits)
- McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) (protection of anonymous political speech and scrutiny analysis)
- Schmitt v. LaRose, 933 F.3d 628 (6th Cir. 2019) (applies Anderson‑Burdick to Ohio initiative regulations)
- Taxpayers United for Assessment Cuts v. Austin, 994 F.2d 291 (6th Cir. 1993) (states may condition initiative access on content‑neutral rules)
- Citizens for Tax Reform v. Deters, 518 F.3d 375 (6th Cir. 2008) (scrutiny of anti‑fraud election statutes and tailoring analysis)