Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless et al. v. Blackwell et al.

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
06a0406p.06 (2006)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An organization lacks standing to challenge a law on behalf of its members unless it can demonstrate that its members have suffered a concrete, particularized, and imminent injury-in-fact. Courts should not issue last-minute injunctions that alter election procedures, as the public interest in orderly elections and the state's interest in enforcing its laws often outweigh speculative harms to voters, which can be remedied by less disruptive means.

Facts:

In early 2006, the Ohio General Assembly passed a new Voter ID law that amended the Ohio Election Code.
The law required individuals applying for or submitting an absentee ballot to provide either their driver's license number, the last four digits of their Social Security number, or a copy of another form of qualifying identification.
Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless is a nonprofit organization that provides services to the homeless and assists them with voter registration.
Service Employees International Union, Local 1199 is a labor union that conducts voter registration and other election-related activities for its members.
Absentee voting for the November 2006 general election began in early October 2006 under the new identification requirements.
On October 26, 2006, Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell issued Directive 2006-78 to all County Boards of Elections to clarify potentially vague terms in the law, such as 'current' and 'government document,' and ensure their uniform application.

Procedural Posture:

Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless and Service Employees International Union, Local 1199 sued Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of Ohio's new absentee voter identification laws and sought emergency injunctive relief.
On October 26, 2006, the district court granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) that enjoined the state from enforcing the challenged statutory provisions.
The State of Ohio's motion to intervene in the district court case was denied.
The Ohio Attorney General, on behalf of the Secretary of State, appealed the TRO to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and filed an emergency motion to stay or vacate the order.
The State of Ohio filed a separate appeal of the district court's denial of its motion to intervene.
The plaintiff organizations moved to dismiss the Secretary's appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Did the district court abuse its discretion by granting a temporary restraining order enjoining Ohio's absentee voter identification statutes where the plaintiff organizations failed to demonstrate standing and the balance of harms and public interest weighed against altering election rules during an ongoing election?

Opinions:

Majority - Gibbons, J.

Yes. The district court abused its discretion by granting the temporary restraining order (TRO). First, the plaintiff Organizations failed to establish a strong likelihood of success on the merits because they lacked standing. The complaint contained no allegations that any of their members had suffered or would imminently suffer a concrete and particularized injury traceable to the voter ID laws, which is a prerequisite for associational standing under Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife. Second, the Secretary of State's clarifying directive largely obviated the Organizations' concerns about vagueness and nonuniform application of the law for future ballots. Third, the balance of harms and the public interest strongly favored staying the TRO. The state would suffer irreparable harm in its inability to enforce a valid law, while any potential harm to voters could be fully remedied by the less drastic measure of preserving all contested ballots. Issuing last-minute orders that change election rules creates voter confusion and harms the public interest in a smoothly administered election, a principle recently affirmed by the Supreme Court in Purcell v. Gonzalez.

Concurring - McKeague, J.

Yes. While concurring fully with the majority opinion, this opinion is written to emphasize the 'disturbing expansion of associational standing principles' that the district court’s order represented. The plaintiffs failed to show the 'real,' 'imminent,' and 'inevitable' injury to their members required by precedent. Furthermore, any attempt by the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless to assert standing on behalf of the general homeless population, rather than its own members, represents a form of third-party standing for which there is no legal precedent.

Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Tarnow, D.J.

No. The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the TRO. While concurring with the majority on the jurisdictional and intervention issues, the dissent argues that the district court properly applied the four-factor test for injunctive relief and its decision was well-reasoned. The majority failed to give the necessary deference to the district court's discretion, as recently mandated by the Supreme Court in Purcell v. Gonzalez.

Analysis:

This case reinforces the constitutional requirement of a concrete injury-in-fact for associational standing, making it clear that generalized grievances about a law's potential effects are insufficient to establish jurisdiction. It demonstrates a strong judicial principle, articulated in Purcell v. Gonzalez, against federal courts issuing last-minute injunctions that disrupt state election processes, establishing a high bar for plaintiffs seeking such relief. The decision favors less disruptive remedies, such as preserving ballots, over enjoining entire statutory schemes during an election. This precedent makes it more difficult for advocacy groups to bring pre-enforcement challenges to election laws without identifying specific members who have been directly harmed.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless et al. v. Blackwell et al. (2006)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"