## Facts

- Ohio required political parties to nominate candidates through a primary election.
- A minor party that lacked continuing party status had to file a “petition to form a political party” at least 120 days before the primary to participate.
- A party retained status only if its gubernatorial or presidential candidate received at least 5% of the vote in the prior general election; otherwise, it had to requalify by petition.
- Ohio’s presidential-year primary date moved earlier over time, causing the petition deadline for new parties to fall much earlier in the election cycle.
- For the 2004 general election, the structure required a new party to file its petition by November 3, 2003 (about one year before the general election).
- The Libertarian Party of Ohio filed its petition on October 30, 2003 with the required number of signatures.
- The Secretary of State rejected the petition because it lacked the statutorily required election-falsification notice language.
- The rejection prevented the party from participating in the March 2004 primary and from placing candidates on the November 2004 ballot with a party designation.
- The party and individual plaintiffs sued for declaratory and injunctive relief; the district court granted summary judgment to the Secretary, and plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the challenge to Ohio’s policy requiring strict compliance with election-law form requirements presented a live controversy or was moot.
2. Whether Ohio’s combined requirements—mandatory nomination by primary and a petition deadline 120 days before that primary for new minor parties—imposed a severe burden on First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and, if so, whether the scheme was narrowly tailored to compelling state interests.

## Decision

- The court dismissed the strict-compliance-policy claim as moot and held it lacked jurisdiction to decide it.
- On the merits, the court reversed summary judgment for the Secretary.
- The court held the combined primary requirement and early pre-primary petition deadline imposed a severe burden on the Libertarian Party’s associational and ballot-access rights.
- Applying strict scrutiny under the Anderson v. Celebrezze framework, the court concluded Ohio’s scheme was not narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest.
- The court declared Ohio’s system for registering new political parties unconstitutional.

## Legal Principles

- Ballot-access restrictions are evaluated under the Anderson v. Celebrezze balancing approach: courts assess the character and magnitude of the burden, the state’s asserted interests, and whether those interests necessitate the burden imposed.
- When ballot-access regulations impose a severe burden on First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, strict scrutiny applies; the state must show the regulations are narrowly tailored to advance compelling interests.
- The constitutionality of ballot-access rules may turn on their combined, practical operation, not on any single requirement viewed in isolation.
- A claim is nonjusticiable when moot; federal courts lack jurisdiction absent a live controversy.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that Ohio’s requirement that new minor parties qualify for a primary by petition roughly a year before a presidential general election, coupled with mandatory primary nomination, severely burdened associational and ballot-access rights and failed strict scrutiny; it reversed the judgment for the Secretary while dismissing the separate strict-compliance claim as moot.


Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Blackwell, 462 F.3d 579 (6th Cir. 2006)