Zachary Mulholland v. Marion County Election Board
746 F.3d 811
7th Cir.2014Background
- Indiana anti-slating statute makes it a crime to distribute a slate endorsing multiple candidates in a primary without written consent; the statute defines slate broadly as a list naming or supporting multiple candidates; Mulholland distributed a flyer listing five candidates with a “Vote Democrat” heading and payment attribution to Hoosiers for Zachary Mulholland; the Marion County Election Board seized Mulholland’s flyers and Colombia the primary proceeded; Mulholland sued in federal court seeking injunction against future enforcement and a damages claim, arguing the statute is facially unconstitutional; the district court dismissed under Younger v. Harris abstention due to ongoing state proceedings; the court of appeals reverses, holding Younger abstention inappropriate and extraordinary circumstances exist given prior final judgment recognizing facial unconstitutionality in Ogden v. Marendt; the May 6, 2014 primary timetable weighs into whether to issue a preliminary injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Younger abstention applies here | Mulholland argues ongoing state proceedings warrant abstention. | Board contends ongoing state proceedings require abstention. | No; abstention not warranted given Sprint framework and lack of pending quasi-criminal proceeding. |
| Whether extraordinary circumstances justify federal intervention | Ogden final judgment forecloses enforcement of the statute. | Statutory facial invalidity alone does not justify relief; Younger applies. | Yes; extraordinary circumstances exist because statute previously held facially unconstitutional and the Board seeks to enforce it anyway. |
| Whether district court erred in dismissing under Younger | Younger misapplied to concurrent federal challenge. | District court properly deferred due to state proceedings. | Reversed; remanded for proceedings including potential preliminary relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs, 134 S. Ct. 584 (2013) (three Middlesex factors not dispositive; focus on criminal-like nature of state proceeding)
- Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423 (1982) (abstention where state proceeding is judicial and closely resembles criminal enforcement)
- Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592 (1975) (civil enforcement; Younger abstention balanced with equities in exceptional cases)
- Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452 (1974) (abstention not triggered by threatened but nonpending state prosecution)