Case: Hawkins v. DeWine

2:20-cv-02781 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio

Filed Date: May 29, 2020

Closed Date: Aug. 3, 2020

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

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…

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)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17205177/parties/hawkins-v-dewine/


Judge(s)

Cole, Ransey Guy Jr. (Ohio)

Graham, James L. (Ohio)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Fitrakis, Robert J. (Ohio)

Flowers, Benjamin M (Ohio)

Gadell-Newton, Constance A. (Ohio)

Attorney for Defendant
Judge(s)

Cole, Ransey Guy Jr. (Ohio)

Graham, James L. (Ohio)

Siler, Eugene Edward Jr. (Kentucky)

Stranch, Jane Branstetter (Tennessee)

Vascura, Chelsey M. (Ohio)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

2:20-cv-02781

Docket [PACER]

Sept. 1, 2020

Sept. 1, 2020

Docket
1

2:20-cv-02781

Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief with Temporary Restraining Order Requested

May 29, 2020

May 29, 2020

Complaint
8

2:20-cv-02781

Amended Complaint

June 9, 2020

June 9, 2020

Pleading / Motion / Brief

2:20-cv-02781

Opinion and Order

June 24, 2020

June 24, 2020

Order/Opinion

2020 WL 2020

0:20-03717

Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellants

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

July 20, 2020

July 20, 2020

Pleading / Motion / Brief

0:20-03717

Opinion

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Aug. 3, 2020

Aug. 3, 2020

Order/Opinion

968 F.3d 968

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17205177/hawkins-v-dewine/

Last updated Jan. 26, 2024, 3:03 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT against Amy Acton, Richard "Mike" DeWine, Frank LaRose ( Filing fee $ 400 paid - receipt number: 0648-7485502), filed by Brett Joseph, Joseph R. DeMare, Anita Rios, Dario Hunter, Becca Calhoun, Howard "Howie" Hawkins, Nathaniel Lane. [ELECTION ISSUE(S) CITED] (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Fitrakis, Robert) Modified party names on 6/1/2020 (kk2) (Entered: 05/29/2020)

1 Civil Cover Sheet

View on PACER

May 29, 2020

May 29, 2020

Clearinghouse
2

MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Inunction by Plaintiffs Becca Calhoun, Joseph R. DeMare, Howard "Howie" Hawkins, Dario Hunter, Brett Joseph, Nathaniel Lane, Anita Rios. [ELECTION ISSUE(S) CITED] (Fitrakis, Robert) Modified on 6/1/2020 to correct party name (kk2) (Entered: 05/29/2020)

May 29, 2020

May 29, 2020

PACER
3

NOTICE of Appearance by Julie M Pfeiffer for Defendants Amy Acton, Michael "Mike" DeWine, Frank LaRose (Pfeiffer, Julie) (Entered: 05/29/2020)

May 29, 2020

May 29, 2020

PACER
4

NOTICE of Appearance by Michael Allan Walton for Defendants Amy Acton, Michael "Mike" DeWine, Frank LaRose (Walton, Michael) (Entered: 05/29/2020)

May 29, 2020

May 29, 2020

PACER
5

NOTICE: Telephone Conference set for 6/2/2020 10:00 AM in Chambers before Judge James L. Graham. (ds) (Entered: 06/01/2020)

June 1, 2020

June 1, 2020

PACER
6

NOTICE of Appearance by Renata Y Staff for Defendants Amy Acton, Michael "Mike" DeWine, Frank LaRose (Staff, Renata) (Entered: 06/01/2020)

June 1, 2020

June 1, 2020

PACER
7

SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Judge James L. Graham on 6/2/2020. (ds) (Entered: 06/02/2020)

June 2, 2020

June 2, 2020

PACER
8

AMENDED COMPLAINT (VERIFIED) against All Defendants, filed by Brett Joseph, Joseph R. DeMare, Anita Rios, Dario Hunter, Becca Calhoun, Howard "Howie" Hawkins, Nathaniel Lane. (Fitrakis, Robert) (Entered: 06/09/2020)

June 9, 2020

June 9, 2020

Clearinghouse
9

Amended MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Plaintiffs Becca Calhoun, Joseph R. DeMare, Howard "Howie" Hawkins, Dario Hunter, Brett Joseph, Nathaniel Lane, Anita Rios. (Fitrakis, Robert) (Entered: 06/09/2020)

June 9, 2020

June 9, 2020

PACER
10

SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Judge James L. Graham on 6/9/20. (jlg6) (Entered: 06/09/2020)

June 9, 2020

June 9, 2020

PACER
11

MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction by Defendants Amy Acton, Richard "Mike" DeWine, Frank LaRose. (Pfeiffer, Julie) (Entered: 06/12/2020)

June 12, 2020

June 12, 2020

PACER
12

RESPONSE in Opposition re 11 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiffs Becca Calhoun, Joseph R. DeMare, Howard "Howie" Hawkins, Dario Hunter, Brett Joseph, Nathaniel Lane, Anita Rios. (Fitrakis, Robert) (Entered: 06/15/2020)

June 15, 2020

June 15, 2020

RECAP
13

REPLY to Response to Motion re 11 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction filed by Defendants Amy Acton, Richard "Mike" DeWine, Frank LaRose. (Staff, Renata) (Entered: 06/19/2020)

June 19, 2020

June 19, 2020

PACER
14

OPINION AND ORDER denying 2 Motion for TRO; denying 9 Motion for TRO; granting 11 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge James L. Graham on 6/24/2020. (ds) (Entered: 06/24/2020)

June 24, 2020

June 24, 2020

RECAP
15

JUDGMENT in favor of Frank LaRose, Richard "Mike" DeWine against Anita Rios, Becca Calhoun, Brett Joseph, Dario Hunter, Howard "Howie" Hawkins, Joseph R. DeMare, Nathaniel Lane. Case Terminated. Signed by Judge James L. Graham on 6/24/2020. (ds) (Entered: 06/24/2020)

June 24, 2020

June 24, 2020

RECAP
16

NOTICE OF APPEAL re 14 Opinion and Order (Filing fee has been paid, receipt number 0648-7540355) by Plaintiffs Becca Calhoun, Joseph R. DeMare, Howard "Howie" Hawkins, Dario Hunter, Brett Joseph, Nathaniel Lane, Anita Rios. (Fitrakis, Robert) Modified text on 7/7/2020 (kk2) (Entered: 07/06/2020)

July 6, 2020

July 6, 2020

PACER
17

USCA Case Number 20-3717 for 16 Notice of Appeal, filed by Joseph R. DeMare, Nathaniel Lane, Becca Calhoun, Dario Hunter, Brett Joseph, Howard "Howie" Hawkins, Anita Rios; case manager Briston S. Mitchell, 513-564-7082. (er) (Entered: 07/07/2020)

July 6, 2020

July 6, 2020

RECAP
18

USCA OPINION AND JUDGMENT as to 16 Notice of Appeal: The judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Note: Mandate to issue. (er) (Entered: 08/04/2020)

Aug. 3, 2020

Aug. 3, 2020

PACER
19

MANDATE of USCA Pursuant to the court's disposition that was filed 08/03/2020 the mandate for this case hereby issues today 8/31/20 as to 16 Notice of Appeal, filed by Joseph R. DeMare, Nathaniel Lane, Becca Calhoun, Dario Hunter, Brett Joseph, Howard "Howie" Hawkins, Anita Rios (pb) (Entered: 09/01/2020)

Sept. 1, 2020

Sept. 1, 2020

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Ohio

Case Type(s):

Election/Voting Rights

Special Collection(s):

COVID-19 (novel coronavirus)

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:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Equal Protection

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Non-settlement Outcome

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Defendant

Nature of Relief:

None

Source of Relief:

None

Issues

Voting:

Voting: General & Misc.

Candidate qualifications