Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

litigationstatuteinjunctionappealdue process

statutecompliancedue processwrit of mandamus

Related Cases

Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Husted, 751 F.3d 403

Facts

The Libertarian Party of Ohio (LPO) and its gubernatorial candidate, Charlie Earl, sought to prevent the enforcement of an Ohio statute that required circulators of candidacy nomination petitions to disclose their employers. The LPO had previously struggled to maintain its status as a ballot-qualified party and had engaged in litigation to challenge various Ohio laws affecting its ballot access. The LPO hired professional petition circulators, including Oscar Hatchett, who collected signatures for the candidates but did not complete the employer information box on the petitions. Following a protest by Gregory Felsoci, the Ohio Secretary of State invalidated the signatures collected, leading to the LPO's candidates being disqualified from the ballot.

Hatchett shipped his completed petition papers to Bridges without completing the employer information box.

Issue

Did the Ohio statute requiring circulators to disclose their employers violate the First Amendment and due process rights of the Libertarian Party of Ohio and its candidates?

The LPO makes two challenges to the constitutionality of section 3501.38(E)(1): (1) on its face the statute's employer disclosure requirement violates the First Amendment, and (2) its enforcement violates the LPO's due process rights.

Rule

The court applied the principles of exacting scrutiny to evaluate the constitutionality of the employer disclosure requirement under the First Amendment, determining that disclosure requirements serve important governmental interests in transparency and do not automatically trigger strict scrutiny.

The court also held that section 3501.38(E)(1) does not comprehend a substantial-compliance standard and that strict compliance is therefore required.

Analysis

The court analyzed the LPO's claims under the First Amendment and due process, concluding that the employer disclosure requirement did not constitute a facial violation of the First Amendment. The court noted that while the requirement may burden the ability to speak, it does not prevent speech and serves the important function of providing transparency in the electoral process. The LPO's failure to comply with the statute's requirements led to the invalidation of the signatures, which the court found justified under the law.

The LPO maintains that the employer disclosure requirement chills the First Amendment activity of many paid petition circulators and cannot withstand judicial scrutiny.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the LPO's request for a preliminary injunction, concluding that the LPO was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its claims regarding the Ohio statute.

Accordingly, the court denied the writ of mandamus.

Who won?

The Ohio Secretary of State prevailed in the case as the court upheld the enforcement of the employer disclosure requirement, finding that the LPO did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on its constitutional claims.

Husted held that the signatures gathered for Linnabary by Hatchett and the signatures gathered for Earl and Clark by Hatchett and Hart were invalid.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Disciplinary Counsel v. Gardner, 99 Ohio St.3d 416, 793 N.E.2d 425, 2003 -Ohio- 4048

Smith v. Cain, 565 U.S. 73, 132 S.Ct. 627, 181 L.Ed.2d 571, 80 USLW 4028, 12 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 432, 2012 Daily Journal D.A.R. 296, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 32

Pennington v. State, 821 N.E.2d 899

In re Waste Management of Texas, Inc., 392 S.W.3d 861, 2013-1 Trade Cases P 78,235

Seidel v. Public Service Co. of New Hampshire, 616 F.Supp. 1342, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,383