6th Circuit Strikes Down Ban on Out-of-State Circulators in Ohio

On October 29, the 6th circuit ruled that the U.S. Constitution prohibits Ohio from banning out-of-state circulators. Nader v Blackwell, 07-4350. Here is the decision. The vote is 3-0, although because of various peculiarities about procedures in this case, each judge wrote separately. Here is a Cincinnati newspaper story about the decision. Thanks to Carter Momberger for the link.

This case has its roots in the 2004 election, when Nader was prevented from being on the ballot because four of his most active circulators seemed not to be domiciled in Ohio. Therefore, all of their signatures had been stricken, and Nader fell below the 5,000 minimum. Technically, this case was filed in 2006, not in 2004, but for all practical purposes it should be considered a resolution of a conflict that began in 2004.

Although Brian Moore this year had won in U.S. District Court against Ohio’s residency requirement, that decision actually did not invalidate the ban on out-of-state circulators. The Ohio ban on out-of-state circulators for independent candidates is not stated explicitly in the law. Instead, the Ohio law requires circulators of independent petitions to be registered voters, and since one may not be a registered voter without being an Ohio resident, the twin requirements are linked in the law. Today’s decision explicitly says that even if Ohio were to amend its law and say that only residents may circulate, that would be as unconstitutional as saying only registered voters may circulate. The decision says on page 14, “No case has been put forward in this litigation as to a compelling state interest in permitting unregistered Ohioans to circulate petitions but not unregistered citizens of other states.” Thanks to Theresa Amato for this news.


Comments

6th Circuit Strikes Down Ban on Out-of-State Circulators in Ohio — 4 Comments

  1. Whooohooo! A victory for our side!

    In addition to being unconstitutional, out-of-state petition circulator bans make ballot access more difficult than it would be otherwise. More difficult ballot access means less choices for the people and more power for the establisment. All out-of-state petition circulator bans should be thrown out.

  2. My idea;

    A political party shall be entitled to have its qualified candidates included on the election ballot, with the applicable party name,
    if a thousand qualified voters register as a member of the party, the party submits a petition signed by a thousand qualified voters, or at the last preceding general election for a partisan office that is voted on by the qualified voters of the entire State the party received, at least, the sixth highest percentage of the popular vote.

  3. I think out speech should not be limited to just in state residents. However I think there should be some type of background checks because they are dealing with people’s information.

  4. “jimbo Says:
    October 30th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
    I think out speech should not be limited to just in state residents. However I think there should be some type of background checks because they are dealing with people’s information.”

    There is no need for this because one can’t really do anything with the information given on a petition. It is just a name and an address. Most people’s names and addresses can be found in a phone book, and everyone who is registered to vote can be found on the voter registration lists which are public information.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.