William Schmitt v. Frank LaRose, 933 F.3d 628

Schmitt and Thompson submitted municipal initiatives to decriminalize marijuana possession in two Ohio villages; Portage County Board of Elections refused to certify them as outside municipalities’ "legislative" authority (deemed "administrative").
Ohio statutes (O.R.C. §§ 3501.11(K), 3501.38(M)(1)(a), 3501.39) require boards to screen initiative petitions for whether they fall within municipal initiative power; rejected proponents must seek mandamus in Ohio courts rather than obtain immediate de novo judicial review.
Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging the gatekeeper statutes impose an unconstitutional prior restraint on political speech and lack Freedman safeguards; district court enjoined the state and ordered de novo review, then issued a permanent injunction (analyzed under due process).
On appeal the Sixth Circuit considered both First Amendment and procedural-due-process theories (despite plaintiffs not pressing due process), focusing on whether the statutory process is a prior restraint requiring Freedman protections or otherwise violates constitutional rights.
The Sixth Circuit reversed and vacated the permanent injunction, holding Ohio’s scheme does not constitute a prior restraint requiring Freedman-style de novo review and that state mandamus provides adequate process.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ohio's ballot-initiative gatekeeper statutes impose a prior restraint on political speech requiring Freedman safeguards (de novo judicial review and prompt stay-preserving relief)	The statutes vest discretionary preclearance power in local officials and deny timely de novo judicial review, creating a prior restraint that chills speech and requires Freedman protections	The statutes regulate ballot mechanics (who may place initiatives on the ballot) not core expressive conduct; the state’s interests in ballot integrity and avoiding overcrowding justify the screening process and mandamus review suffices	Not a prior restraint; Freedman does not apply. Anderson–Burdick balancing applied: burden not severe and Ohio’s interests justify the process; plaintiffs' First Amendment claim fails
Whether plaintiffs were denied procedural due process by lack of de novo appellate review of the board decision	(Not advanced below) Plaintiffs argued lack of adequate judicial review denied meaningful remedy	The state argued mandamus in Ohio courts is an adequate post-deprivation remedy and due process does not entitle plaintiffs to a particular standard of appellate review	No procedural-due-process violation: state mandamus provides adequate process; plaintiffs cannot show entitlement to specific de novo review

Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 (procedural safeguards for prior restraints on speech)
Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (framework for assessing burdens on ballot access)
Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (balancing test for election regulations)
John Doe No. 1 v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186 (recognition that structural rules can affect speech but differ from direct content regulation)
Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (states may enact reasonable regulations of ballots and elections)
Taxpayers United for Assessment Cuts v. Austin, 994 F.2d 291 (6th Cir. 1993) (state-created initiative process may be subject to content-neutral, nondiscriminatory regulations)
Initiative & Referendum Inst. v. Walker, 450 F.3d 1082 (10th Cir. 2006) (election-mechanics rules may not implicate First Amendment speech; rational-basis scrutiny)
Committee to Impose Term Limits v. Ohio Ballot Board, 885 F.3d 443 (6th Cir. 2018) (upholding Ohio single-subject rule under rational-basis analysis)
State ex rel. Ebersole v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 20 N.E.3d 678 (Ohio 2014) (distinguishing legislative from administrative actions for initiatives)