Summit County Democratic v. Blackwell

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
388 F.3d 547 (2004)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A state statute permitting political parties to appoint challengers to be present at polling places to question a voter's qualifications does not, on its face, impose a severe and unconstitutional burden on the fundamental right to vote. The potential for delays or vigorous use of such a statutorily prescribed procedure is insufficient to warrant a judicial order preventing its enforcement immediately before an election.

Facts:

An Ohio statute, Rev. Code § 3505.20, allows any appointed challenger, elector, or election official to challenge a person's eligibility to vote at a polling place.
A related statute, Rev. Code § 3505.21, specifies that political parties and groups of candidates may appoint qualified electors to serve as challengers.
Leading up to the general election on November 2, 2004, political parties made plans to deploy numerous challengers to polling places across Ohio.
Plaintiffs alleged that these challengers would be concentrated in precincts with a majority of African-American voters.
The stated purpose of the challengers was to prevent voter fraud, but plaintiffs feared the actual result would be voter intimidation, long lines, chaos, and the disenfranchisement of eligible voters.

Procedural Posture:

The Summit County Democratic Central and Executive Committee sued Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
Marian Spencer and others filed a similar suit against Blackwell in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
Both lawsuits sought to block the enforcement of Ohio's statute allowing partisan challengers at polling places for the November 2, 2004 election.
The Northern District of Ohio granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) preventing challengers from being present for the sole purpose of challenging voters.
The Southern District of Ohio granted an injunction barring all challengers other than election judges and electors already in the polling place.
Several individuals designated as challengers (Defendants-Intervenors-Appellants) intervened in both cases.
The Intervenors filed notices of appeal and motions for an emergency stay of the district courts' orders in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
The Sixth Circuit consolidated the two appeals for review.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

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

Issue:

Does Ohio Rev. Code § 3505.20, which authorizes partisan challengers to be present at polling places to question a voter's qualifications, create an unconstitutional burden on the fundamental right to vote, thereby justifying a preliminary injunction to bar its enforcement?

Opinions:

Majority - Rogers, J.

No. The Ohio statute permitting challengers at polling places does not likely create an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote. The plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits because the presence of challengers, who can only initiate an inquiry to be resolved by precinct judges, does not constitute a severe burden on the right to vote. While more vigorous use of this statutory procedure might result in longer lines, such a possibility does not render the statute unconstitutional. The balance of harms and public interest weigh against judicially altering election rules at the last minute, favoring the state's interest in executing its valid laws and administering an orderly election.

Concurring - Ryan, J.

No. The injunctions should be stayed because the plaintiffs lack the requisite standing. Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate they have suffered an 'injury in fact' that is 'actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.' The predictions of chaos, intimidation, and pandemonium are based on unsubstantiated speculation, not evidence of past occurrences or present threats. A lawsuit cannot be maintained on a hypothetical fear of injury.

Dissenting - Cole, J.

Yes. The Ohio statute, as applied here, creates an unconstitutional burden, and the district courts' injunctions should be upheld. The district courts, after reviewing evidence, made factual findings that the presence of hundreds of partisan challengers was likely to lead to suppression, intimidation, and chaos, which constitutes a clear burden on the fundamental right to vote. The state's interest in preventing fraud is already served by election judges and officials, making the partisan challenger system not narrowly tailored. The balance of harms weighs heavily in favor of protecting voters from intimidation and ensuring the franchise is unimpaired, and the appellate court should defer to the district courts' exercise of discretion.

Analysis:

This decision underscores the high threshold for obtaining federal judicial intervention in state election administration, particularly on the eve of an election. It prioritizes the state's interest in enforcing its established, facially valid election laws over speculative claims of voter intimidation and disenfranchisement. The ruling highlights the critical importance of standing, requiring plaintiffs to show concrete, imminent harm rather than general fears about how a law might be applied. The sharp disagreement between the majority/concurrence and the dissent reflects a fundamental tension in election law between preventing voter fraud and protecting access to the ballot.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Summit County Democratic v. Blackwell (2004)

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