Filed Date: May 29, 2020
Closed Date: Aug. 3, 2020
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case is about the constitutionality of Ohio’s ballot access requirements for the November 2020 general election in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiffs, two independent presidential candidates and five individual Ohio voters, filed this lawsuit on May 29, 2020, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against Ohio’s Governor, Secretary of State, and Director of the Department of Health. Represented by private counsel, the plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arguing that the state’s signature and filing requirements for nominations to the Ohio ballot violated the plaintiffs' First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the state’s signature and filing requirements are unconstitutional as applied during the pandemic, an injunction against the nomination signature and filing requirements, an injunction against the signing and filing requirements to form the Green Party of Ohio, requested a reduced signature requirement, and requested an order that the defendants develop efficient and realistic procedures for gathering petition signatures. The case was assigned to Judge James L. Graham.
On May 29, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order. On June 9, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint requesting, in the alternative, that the plaintiff candidates be placed on the ballot and the Green Party be recognized as a minor political party. On the same day, the plaintiffs filed an amended motion for a temporary restraining order. On June 12, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim and lack of standing. The defendants argued that, since the state’s COVID-19 orders exempted First Amendment activity, that the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries could not be traced to the defendants’ conduct.
On June 24, 2020, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motions and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. 2020 WL 3448228. First, the court found that plaintiffs did have standing to file the case since their alleged injuries were fairly traceable to the state’s ballot access requirements and stay-at-home orders. Next, the court analyzed whether the plaintiffs had pleaded a legally cognizable First Amendment claim. The court found that the state’s COVID-19 orders imposed no significant burden on plaintiffs’ signature-gathering rights, were nondiscriminatory, and served compelling state interests in election administration. The court therefore found that the signature requirement, in light of the state’s COVID-19 orders, did not violate the plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. While the plaintiffs argued that the First Amendment exemptions to the COVID-19 orders were too vague to give them notice as to whether they were allowed to circulate petitions, the court found that the First Amendment exceptions were not unconstitutionally vague and that state officials had not acted to chill the plaintiffs’ exercise of their First Amendment rights.
Next, the court analyzed the plaintiffs’ equal protection and due process claims. The court found that these claims failed because the complaint did not allege specific violations of these rights and instead merely restated the alleged violations of the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights. While the plaintiffs later argued that the COVID-19 orders denied them equal protection because they treated them differently than those who had already collected enough signatures prior to the pandemic, the court rejected this argument because the orders did not treat the plaintiffs any differently than other petition circulators. The plaintiffs also argued in a later brief that the defendants’ violated their due process rights by changing the election laws in the middle of the pandemic, making it impossible for them to gather signatures. The court also rejected this argument, finding that the defendants neither changed the statutory requirements for ballot access, nor did their COVID-19 orders prohibit signature-gathering.
On July 6, 2020, the plaintiffs appealed the district court’s dismissal of the case. USCA No. 20-3717. On August 3, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order dismissing the case. 968 F.3d 603. The Sixth Circuit relied on recent precedent in Thompson v. DeWine, 959 F.3d 804 (6th Cir. 2020), which found that Ohio’s ballot-access laws during the COVID-19 pandemic placed only an intermediate burden on the plaintiffs’ access to the ballot. Since the court did not find that the restrictions imposed severe burdens on the plaintiffs, the court declined to apply strict scrutiny to the state’s election measures. Instead, the court weighed the burden imposed by the regulation against the precise interests put forward by the state. The court found that the state offered several justifications for the ballot-access laws, including fair and orderly elections, signature authenticity, and ensuring adequate timing to verify signatures. Based on the Sixth Circuit’s previous ruling in Thompson, the court here found that the state’s election administration interests outweigh the intermediate burden placed on the plaintiffs. The case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Nicholas Gillan (1/3/2022)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17205177/parties/hawkins-v-dewine/
Cole, Ransey Guy Jr. (Ohio)
Graham, James L. (Ohio)
Siler, Eugene Edward Jr. (Kentucky)
Stranch, Jane Branstetter (Tennessee)
Vascura, Chelsey M. (Ohio)
Fitrakis, Robert J. (Ohio)
Flowers, Benjamin M (Ohio)
Gadell-Newton, Constance A. (Ohio)
Pfeiffer, Julie M (Ohio)
Staff, Renata Y (Ohio)
Cole, Ransey Guy Jr. (Ohio)
Graham, James L. (Ohio)
Siler, Eugene Edward Jr. (Kentucky)
Stranch, Jane Branstetter (Tennessee)
Vascura, Chelsey M. (Ohio)
Fitrakis, Robert J. (Ohio)
Flowers, Benjamin M (Ohio)
Gadell-Newton, Constance A. (Ohio)
Pfeiffer, Julie M (Ohio)
Staff, Renata Y (Ohio)
Walton, Michael Allan (Ohio)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17205177/hawkins-v-dewine/
Last updated May 12, 2023, 3 a.m.
State / Territory: Ohio
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Healthy Elections COVID litigation tracker
Key Dates
Filing Date: May 29, 2020
Closing Date: Aug. 3, 2020
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Two independent presidential candidates and five individual Ohio voters
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General:
Voting: