Case: Schmitt v. Husted
2:18-cv-00966 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Filed Date: Aug. 28, 2018
Closed Date: Nov. 8, 2021
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This case alleged that Portage County and Ohio state officials acted as "gatekeepers" by having near-total discretion in determining which initiatives were included on Ohio's ballots.
On August 28, 2018, three individuals sued the Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted in his official capacity and the Portage County Board of Elections and each of its four members in their official capacities in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, seeking a declaratory judgment, a preliminary injunction, and a temporary restraining order prohibiting Defendants from enforcing and/or applying three Ohio laws that allowed the Portage County Board of Elections to act as “gatekeepers” in deciding which initiatives were included on Ohio’s ballots. Two of the Plaintiffs had drafted and circulated two ballot initiatives in two Ohio villages in Portage County, Garrettsville and Windham. Both initiatives proposed ordinances decriminalizing marijuana possession. They then submitted the ballot initiatives to the Portage County Board of Elections, which rejected their certification for the ballot. The third Plaintiff was an individual voter who supported the initiatives. Plaintiffs alleged that the Ohio laws deprived them of their First Amendment rights under the United States Constitution insofar as they were content-based restrictions on speech, and the State of Ohio could not provide a compelling government interest to justify such restrictions or prove that the laws were narrowly tailored to achieve such interest.
Under Ohio law, the local county board of elections reviews and certifies the sufficiency and validity of initiative petitions, and it also determines whether the petition satisfies the statutory prerequisites to place the issue on the ballot. This is known as the "gatekeeper mechanism." Plaintiffs argued that the gatekeeper mechanism violated their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. They claimed that neither the Ohio Constitution nor state laws provided a remedy when a board of elections rejects an initiative petition. By contrast, if the local board deemed an initiative petition valid, the Supreme Court of Ohio had original jurisdiction to review the petition's validity. Plaintiffs argued that without the right to review denied petitions, the gatekeeper mechanism violated their First Amendment rights related to voting upon initiative-generated legislation. They also claimed that their right to due process was violated. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment also protects the freedoms of speech and association and the right to petition for redress of grievances.
On September 19, 2018, Chief Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. granted Plaintiffs’ application for a temporary restraining order and directed the Ohio Secretary of State and Portage County Board of Elections to place both initiatives on the ballot for the election on November 6, 2018. 341 F.Supp.3d 784. The Court recognized that while Ohio has strong interests in ensuring its elections are run fairly and honestly, Ohio did not have a legitimate state interest in preventing an adequate legal remedy for petitioners denied ballot access by a board of elections. The Court further held that without a right to appeal or review, Plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm. Depriving Plaintiffs of a right to review harmed not only Plaintiffs themselves but also Ohio voters who would not have an opportunity to vote on these initiatives and no way to seek redress when ballot initiatives are blocked. A status conference was held on October 4, 2018, which resulted in an order converting the temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction expiring November 7, 2018. The parties were also ordered to brief the constitutionality of the Ohio laws.
Oral argument on the constitutionality of the Ohio laws was held December 19, 2018, and on February 11, 2019, the Court reinstated, as a permanent injunction, the relief granted in its September 19, 2018 order. 363 F.Supp.3d 842. The Court's reasoning was similar to the reasoning it used in its decision on the TRO: while Ohio has a legitimate state interest in ensuring its elections are run fairly and efficiently, there is no legitimate state interest in withholding a legal remedy for petitioners denied ballot access by a board of elections. This denied Plaintiffs' procedural due process rights.
In 2019, Frank LaRose became Ohio's Secretary of State and was substituted for Defendant Jon Husted. Defendant LaRose filed a Motion for Reconsideration on February 25, 2019, and a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on March 12, 2019, contemporaneous with a motion to stay enforcement of the District Court’s order pending appeal. On March 18, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to stay, staying the permanent injunction for ten days to provide Defendant the opportunity to move the Sixth Circuit for relief. 2019 WL 1243016. On April 15, 2019, the Court also granted Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration (which the Court addressed as a Motion for Clarification of its February 11, 2019 Order).
On August 7, 2019, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s order and vacated the permanent injunction, finding that the Ohio laws did not violate Plaintiffs’ First or Fourteenth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution. 933 F.3d 628. The Court began by holding that Ohio's ballot initiative statutes were not a prior restraint on political speech. Citing Supreme Court precedent holding that ballots serve primarily to elect candidates, not as forums for political expression, the Court evaluated Plaintiffs' First Amendment challenge under a three-step framework. First, is the burden imposed by Ohio's ballot-initiative statutes "severe."? The Court answered that question in the negative, finding the burden imposed by the Ohio statutes as somewhere between minimal and severe. Second, the Court examined Ohio's justifications for the restriction. The Court found that Ohio had a legitimate and substantial interest in maintaining voter confidence in the electoral process by ensuring that only ballot-eligible initiatives go to the voters. Third, the Court assessed whether the State's restrictions are constitutionally valid given the strength of its proferred interests. While Ohio's chosen method for screening ballot initiatives was not the least restrictive, it was not unreasonable either, given the State's significant interest in regulating elections. Next, the Court addressed the lower court's ruling that Plaintiffs' procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment were violated. Plaintiffs did not raise a procedural due process argument before the trial court; rather, the trial court made the argument for them. The Court determined that the State afforded aggrieved parties a right to review via the availability of mandamus relief in Ohio's state courts. Under a writ of mandamus, a court orders a government official to fulfill its duties. The Sixth Circuit had previously held that state court mandamus is a satisfactory remedy for purposes of procedural due process. Thus, the Sixth Circuit concluded that Plaintiffs could not state a procedural due process claim.
On February 7, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied the writ on May 28, 2020. 140 S.Ct. 2803 (2020). This effectively ended the substance of the case.
While unrelated to the substance of the case, the parties continued to litigate the issue of attorneys’ fees and costs. On December 4, 2019, the District Court denied Plaintiffs’ motions for attorneys’ fees and denied Defendant’s bill of costs. 2019 WL 6527976. Plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on September 26, 2020, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed on June 15, 2021, finding that the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Plaintiffs’ fee request. 2021 WL 4592524. Plaintiffs petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari on September 30, 2021, and such petition was denied on November 9, 2021. 142 S.Ct. 466 (2021). This constituted the last filing in the case.
The case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Lauren Jameson (12/27/2023)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7762986/parties/schmitt-v-husted/
Brown, Mark R (Ohio)
Kafantaris, Mark G. (Ohio)
Law, Mark R. (Ohio)
Holder, Pamela Joy (Ohio)
Meduri, Christopher J. (Ohio)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7762986/schmitt-v-husted/
Last updated Oct. 7, 2026, 5:18 a.m.
Docket for: Schmitt v. Husted
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: Aug. 28, 2018
Closing Date: Nov. 8, 2021
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Three individuals - two who drafted and circulated ballot initiatives calling for reductions of penalties in local ordinances in two Portage County, Ohio villages for those charged with possessing marijuana, and one who supported the initiatives.
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
State
State of Ohio; Portage County, Ohio Board of Elections
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
Southern District of Ohio 2:18-cv-00966
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 20-04025
Supreme Court of the United States 21-491
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 19-03196
Supreme Court of the United States 19-974
Supreme Court of the United States 19A518
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Relief Granted:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Order Duration: 2019 - 2019
Issues
Voting:
Case Summary of Schmitt v. Husted, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/43754/ (last updated 12/27/2023).