## Facts

- Ohio enacted House Bill 3 in 2006, revising election procedures and imposing identification-related requirements, including provisions affecting absentee-ballot applications and absentee voting.
- Two organizations sued the Ohio Secretary of State shortly before the November 2006 general election, challenging specified absentee voter identification provisions as confusing and inconsistently applied by county boards of elections.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the district court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) barring enforcement of identified absentee ID provisions and imposing affirmative directives, including ballot-preservation and voter-notice requirements.
- The Secretary appealed and sought a stay or vacatur of the TRO and related orders; the plaintiffs sought dismissal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
- The State of Ohio sought to intervene to defend the constitutionality of the challenged provisions.

## Issues

1. Whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) to review the district court’s TRO and related election-administration orders.
2. Whether the State of Ohio could intervene on appeal to defend the constitutionality of the challenged election statutes.
3. Whether, applying preliminary-injunction factors, the TRO and related directives should be stayed or vacated in whole or in part pending further proceedings.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion to dismiss, holding it had appellate jurisdiction because the TRO and related orders operated in substance as appealable injunctive relief under § 1292(a)(1).
- The court granted the State of Ohio’s motion to intervene.
- The court granted in part the Secretary’s motion to stay or vacate, concluding portions of the district court’s election-related directives were overbroad and posed a substantial risk of disruption and confusion given the proximity to Election Day.

## Legal Principles

- An order labeled a TRO may be immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) when its practical effect is to grant injunctive relief that materially alters election administration, particularly on the eve of an election.
- In deciding whether to issue, maintain, stay, or vacate election-related injunctive relief, courts apply the four-factor preliminary-injunction test: likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, harm to others, and the public interest.
- When election rules are challenged shortly before an election, courts weigh the public interest in orderly administration and stable rules heavily, and they are cautious about judicially imposed last-minute changes absent a strong showing warranting such relief.
- A state may intervene to defend the constitutionality of its statutes where statewide sovereign and institutional interests are implicated.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit treated the district court’s election TRO as an appealable injunction, permitted the State to intervene to defend Ohio’s election laws, and partially stayed or vacated the district court’s directives to reduce disruption to absentee voting administration immediately before the 2006 general election.


Ne. Ohio Coal. for the Homeless v. Blackwell, 467 F.3d 999 (6th Cir. 2006)