BRIAN AMES, v. FRANK LAROSE - Articles

All Content

BRIAN AMES, v. FRANK LAROSE

Posted by: Stacey Shrader Joslin on Nov 20, 2023

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Matthew Miller-Novak, BARRON, PECK, BENNIE & SCHLEMMER, CO. LPA, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Andrew D. McCartney, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Matthew Miller-Novak, BARRON, PECK, BENNIE & SCHLEMMER, CO. LPA, Cincinnati, Ohio, Robert L. Thompson, THOMPSON LEGAL LLC, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellant.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Andrew D. McCartney, Michael A. Walton, Phillip T. Kelly, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee.

Judge(s): BATCHELDER, GRIFFIN, and BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judges

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

BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judge. Brian Ames, a member of the Ohio Republican Party (ORP), challenges the constitutionality of Ohio Revised Code § 3517.03, the law governing how Ohio’s political parties select their central committee membership. Ames contends that § 3517.03 contains two unconstitutional provisions: (1) a requirement that political parties elect one man and one woman from each central committee district; and (2) a requirement that central committee members serve terms of either two or four years. The district court concluded that Ames lacked standing and dismissed his claims. We agree. Independent of the statute, the ORP’s internal rules contain an identical gender provision and a compatible two-year term- length provision. Ames does not challenge the ORP’s ability to maintain those internal rules, nor does he present any allegation or evidence that the ORP would change its internal practices in the absence of § 3517.03. It follows that Ames fails to allege a redressable injury, and we therefore affirm the district court’s order dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction.

Attachments: