HOWARD HAWKINS; DARIO HUNTER; JOSEPH R. DEMARE; BECCA CALHOUN; NATHANIEL LANE; BRETT JOSEPH; ANITA RIOS v. MIKE DEWINE; FRANK LAROSE; AMY ACTON - Articles

All Content

HOWARD HAWKINS; DARIO HUNTER; JOSEPH R. DEMARE; BECCA CALHOUN; NATHANIEL LANE; BRETT JOSEPH; ANITA RIOS v. MIKE DEWINE; FRANK LAROSE; AMY ACTON

Posted by: Karen Belcher on Aug 3, 2020

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Robert J. Fitrakis, FITRAKIS & GADELL-NEWTON, LLC, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellants.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Benjamin M. Flowers, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Robert J. Fitrakis, FITRAKIS & GADELL- NEWTON, LLC, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellants.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Benjamin M. Flowers, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees.

Judge(s): COLE, Chief Judge; SILER and STRANCH, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus

COLE, Chief Judge. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the State of Ohio issued a series of orders restricting in-person gatherings. But it left unchanged its ballot-access laws, which require candidates and minor political parties hoping to be listed on November’s ballot to show that they have a modicum of community support by collecting petition signatures from Ohio voters. The law requires that the signatures be collected in person, a task which has become more difficult in the era of social distancing. This case presents us with the question whether the State’s ballot-access requirements, as applied, have become unconstitutionally burdensome in light of the orders restricting in-person gatherings. Binding precedent compels us to conclude that they are not. We therefore affirm the district court.

Attachments: