In the pending federal lawsuit re: Ohio’s ballot measure regulations, things are moving in favor of the Secretary of State.
On Friday, we wrote about how the Minimum Wage initiative and the Secure and Fair Elections Amendment in Ohio asked the Secretary of state to reduce the number of signatures needed to qualify for ballot, to allow electronic signatures, and to push back the April filing deadline. After the Ohio Secretary of State denied the request, the groups filed a case in federal court.
The trial court last week ruled in favor of the ballot measure committees but, in its motion asking the Sixth Circuit to stay the trial court ruling, Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose’s office argued that elected officials (not the court) must initiate changes in electronic-signature gathering and filing deadlines.
This morning, the Sixth Circuit agreed with the Secretary of State and granted a stay (i.e., a pause) on the trial court’s order until the appeal can be heard. The order states “the decision to drastically alter Ohio’s election procedures must rest with the Ohio Secretary of State and other elected officials, not the court.” Moreover, the order concludes that the Secretary of State has shown that he is “likely to prevail on the merits” of the case—a clear indication that the Ohio ballot measure campaigns will not have a sympathetic audience when arguing before the Sixth Circuit’s three-judge panel in the coming weeks.
Based on this morning’s order from the Sixth Circuit, it appears Ohio’s ballot access rules will not be modified—or at least not modified by the judicial branch of government—in light of COVID-19. Courts across the nation have given a chilly reception to ballot measure proponents seeking to relax ballot access rules due to the ongoing public health crisis, and the Sixth Circuit appears to fit within that emerging trend.
