Thompson v. DeWine
Decision Date | 19 May 2020 |
Docket Number | CASE No. 2:20-CV-2129 |
Citation | 461 F.Supp.3d 712 |
Parties | Chad THOMPSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Governor of Ohio Michael DEWINE, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
Mark R. Brown, Columbus, OH, Oliver B. Hall, Pro Hac Vice, Center for Competitive Democracy, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.
Julie M. Pfeiffer, Ohio Attorney General's Office Constitutional Offices Section, Michael Allan Walton, Office of the Ohio Attorney General, Columbus, OH, for Defendants.
The instant matter is before the Court for consideration of three Applications for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or three Motions for Preliminary Injunction filed by each of the groups of Plaintiffs in this matter. (ECF Nos. 4, 15, 17-2.) The Court held several telephone conferences with the parties, who unanimously indicated that they did not need an evidentiary hearing, instead requesting that the Court rely on their agreed stipulated facts, their non-contested affidavits, and their briefing. Defendants filed their Memorandum in Opposition (ECF No. 40) and Plaintiffs filed their Replies (ECF Nos. 41, 42, 43). For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs’ Motions.
Plaintiffs Chad Thompson, William Schmitt and Don Keeney ("Thompson Plaintiffs"), Plaintiff-Intervenor Ohioans for Safe and Secure Elections and their supporters ("OFSE Plaintiffs"), and Plaintiff-Intervenor Ohioans for Raising the Wage and their supporters ("OFRW Plaintiffs") (together "Plaintiffs"), seek to place proposed local initiatives and constitutional amendments on the November 3, 2020 general election ballot.
The Ohio Constitution provides state electors the right to amend the Ohio Constitution and legislate through initiative and referendum. The Ohio Constitution and various statutes set forth a number of formal requirements for qualifying on the ballot, including a total number of signatures required, a geographic distribution of signers, requirements that petitions must be signed in ink, must be witnessed by the petition circulator, and may not be made by proxy, together with deadlines for submission to the Secretary of State or local officials.
While Plaintiffs were advancing their petitions for the November 3, 2020 general election, the world was stunned by the advent of Coronavirus Disease ("COVID-19"), a highly contagious respiratory virus. The virus has spread throughout the world like wildfire quickly rising to the level of a global pandemic that has posed a significant threat to the safety of all people. In an effort to respond rapidly to this threat, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine, in Executive Order 2020-01D, authorized Ohio Department of Health Director Amy Acton, M.D., to formulate general treatment guidelines to curtail the spread of COVID-19 in Ohio.
In accordance with Governor DeWine's Executive Order, Dr. Acton issued several Director's Orders, one of which required all individuals living in Ohio to stay home beginning March 22, 2020 subject to certain exceptions.
According to Plaintiffs, Ohio's enforcement of several signature requirements in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and Ohio's responding Stay-at-Home orders, make it impossible to qualify their constitutional amendments and initiatives for the November ballot. Plaintiffs Thompson, Schmitt, and Keeney seek an order directing Defendants to either place their marijuana decriminalization initiatives on local ballots, or in the alternative, to enjoin or modify the requirements for qualifying initiatives for the November ballot in light of the public health emergency caused by COVID-19 and Ohio's emergency orders that were issued in response. OFSE and OFRW and their supporters similarly seek orders placing their proposed constitutional amendments on the November ballot or modification of the requirements for qualifying their proposal amendments for the ballot.
Although Plaintiffs seek place to place different local initiatives and constitutional amendments on the November ballot, the key issue is the same: whether Ohio's strict enforcement of its requirements for placing local initiatives and constitutional amendments on the ballot unconstitutionally burden Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights in light of the ongoing pandemic and Ohio's emergency orders.
An initiative is a method of direct democracy whereby the people enact laws or adopt constitutional amendments without reliance upon the legislature. See generally Pfeifer v. Graves, 88 Ohio St. 473, 104 N.E. 529 (1913). The Ohio Constitution reserves to Ohioans the right to engage in direct democracy through the advancement of initiative petitions. Ohio Const., Art. II, § 1a & 1f. The Ohio Constitution empowers Ohioans to advances initiative petitions for local ordinances and measures as well as for constitutional amendments.
Article II, § 1 of the Ohio Constitution empowers Ohioans to "propose amendments to the constitution and to adopt or reject the same at the polls" independent of the Ohio legislature. Ohio Const., Art. II, § 1. Ohio Revised Code § 3519.01 requires anyone who seeks to propose an Ohio constitutional amendment via initiative petition to submit a summary of the amendment along with the signatures of one thousand qualified electors to the attorney general for certification. If the attorney general determines that the summary is fair and truthful within ten days of receiving the initiative petition, then the attorney general must send the initiative petition to the Ohio Ballot Board. Ohio Rev. Code § 3519.01(A). Within ten days of receiving the proposed amendment, the Board must determine whether the it contains only one proposed law or amendment. Ohio Rev. Code § 3505.062(A).
If both the attorney general and the Board certify the petition, then the attorney general is directed to file with the secretary of state "a verified copy of the proposed law or constitutional amendment together with its summary and the attorney general's certification." Ohio Rev. Code § 3505.062(A) & § 3519.01. Once this process is complete, the Ohio law permits the proponents of the constitutional amendment to acquire signatures to support its placement on the ballot. Id.
The Ohio Constitution requires an initiative petition for a proposed constitutional amendment to be signed by ten percent of the electors of the state who voted in the last gubernatorial election. Ohio Const. Art. II, § 1a ; Ohio Rev Code § 3519.14 ( ). The petitions must contain valid signatures from at least 44 of Ohio's 88 counties, in an amount equal to at least five percent of the total votes cast in the last gubernatorial election in those 44 counties. Ohio Const. Art. II, § 1a ; Ohio Rev. Code § 3519.14.
In addition, the "[t]he names of all signers to such petitions shall be written in ink" and the petition initiative must include a "statement of the circulator, as may be required by law, that he witnessed the affixing of every signature" Ohio Const. Art. II, § 1g ; see Ohio Rev. Code § 3501.38(B). "No person shall write any name other than the person's own ... [and] no person may authorize another to sign for the petition," Ohio Rev. Code § 3501.38 ; Ohio Const. Art. II § 1g.
The proponents of the amendment must file their petitions with the Secretary of State no later than 125 days before the general election to qualify for the ballot. Ohio Const. Art. II, § 1a. "This year, in order to qualify for the November general-election ballot, the petitioners must submit their petitions on or before July 1, 2020." State ex rel. Ohioans for Secure & Fair Elections , 159 Ohio St.3d 568, 2020-Ohio-1459, *P5, 152 N.E.3d 267 (2020). The proponents must file the completed petitions and signatures in searchable electronic form with a summary of the number of part petitions per county and the number of signatures, along with an index of the electronic copy of the petition. Ohio Rev. Code § 3519.16(B). After a petition is filed with the Secretary of State, various deadlines are triggered for the Secretary of State to determine the sufficiency of the signatures, for supplemental signatures to be collected, and for challenges to petitions and signatures to be filed in the Ohio Supreme Court.
Article II, § 1f of the Ohio Constitution reserves the use of referendum and initiative powers to the citizens of a municipality for questions on which a municipality is "authorized by law to control by legislative action." Ohio Const., Art. II, § 1f.
Ohio Revised Code § 731.28 outlines generally the procedure by which municipal initiative petitions are to be submitted, verified, and certified to the board of elections for placement on the ballot. The statute states that, "[o]rdinances and other measures providing for the exercise of any powers of government granted by the constitution or delegated to any municipal corporation by the general assembly may be proposed by initiative petition." Id. Such petitions must contain the signatures of not less than ten per cent of the number of electors who voted for governor at the most recent general election for the office of governor in the municipal corporation." Id.
Ohio law requires the proponents of local initiative petitions to file "a certified copy of the proposed ordinance or measure with the city auditor or the village clerk" prior to its circulation. Ohio Rev. Code § 731.32. After the initial filing of the proposed ordinance with the city auditor or village clerk, circulators of initiative petitions may begin to collect signatures by circulating ""a full and correct copy of the title and text of the proposed ordinance or other measure." Ohio Rev. Code § 731.31.
Ohio...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fair Maps Nev. v. Cegavske
...to state elections statutes similar to those Plaintiffs make here nonfrivolous. See id. ; see also Thompson v. DeWine , Case No. 2:20-CV-2129, 461 F.Supp.3d 712, (S.D. Ohio May 19, 2020) (finding as-applied First Amendment challenge to Ohio statutes regulating the process of amending Ohio's......
-
Thompson v. DeWine
...submission, and told Ohio to come up with a system that would "reduce the burden on ballot access."3 Thompson v. DeWine , 461 F.Supp.3d 712, No. 2:20-CV-2129 (S.D. Ohio 2020) (quotation omitted).Ohio asked us to stay the district court's injunction while its appeal was pending. We did. Thom......
-
Thompson v. DeWine
...complaint and REMAND with instructions to dismiss the case as moot.I.We need not restate the facts at length. See Thompson v. DeWine , 461 F. Supp. 3d 712 (S.D. Ohio), stayed , 959 F.3d 804 (6th Cir.) ( Thompson I ), rev'd , 976 F.3d 610 (6th Cir. 2020) ( Thompson II ). The short of it is t......
-
Foster v. Ronco
...369-371, 383-384, stay granted in part by Esshaki v. Whitmer (6th Cir. 2020) 813 Fed.Appx. 170, 171; Thompson v. DeWine (S.D.Ohio 2020) 461 F.Supp.3d 712, 717-718, 735-736, revd. by Thompson v. DeWine (6th Cir. 2020) 976 F.3d 610, 620.) Here, in contrast, plaintiffs did not seek to enjoin t......
-
JACOBSON 2.0: POLICE POWER IN THE TIME OF COVID-19.
...Morgan v. White, No. 20-cv-2189, 2020 LEXIS 86618 (N.D. Ill. May 18, 2020), aff'd, 964 F.3d 649 (7th Cir. 2020); Thompson v. DeWine, 461 F. Supp. 3d 712 (S.D. Ohio 2020), stay pending appeal granted, 959 F.3d 804 (6th Cir. 2020); Fair Maps Nevada v. Cegavske, 463 F. Supp. 3d 1123 (D. Nev. 2......