Facts
- Ohio law permitted designated partisan “challengers” to challenge a voter’s qualifications at the polling place.
- Democratic voters and organizations alleged Republicans planned to deploy large numbers of challengers in predominantly African-American precincts, causing indiscriminate challenges, intimidation, and long voting delays.
- Two federal district courts, after receiving evidence, found the planned challenger activity would impose a severe burden on voters not justified by the State’s anti-fraud interest.
- The district courts granted partial injunctive relief limiting challenger activities (including keeping challengers out of polling places in one case and limiting them to observer status in another), rather than invalidating the statutory challenge process.
- Intervening Republican voters sought emergency relief in the Sixth Circuit; the Ohio Secretary of State did not appeal the district court orders.
- The Sixth Circuit granted emergency stays of the district court injunctions shortly before the November 2, 2004 election.
- Hours before polls opened, the plaintiffs applied to the Circuit Justice to vacate the Sixth Circuit’s stays.
Issues
- Whether a Circuit Justice should, on an emergency application immediately before an election, vacate a court of appeals’ stays that suspended district court orders restricting partisan poll challengers.
- Whether the allegations of voter intimidation and burdens on voting justified extraordinary relief despite disputed facts and an incomplete record.
Decision
- The Circuit Justice denied the applications to vacate the Sixth Circuit’s emergency stays.
- The stays remained in effect for Election Day, leaving the district courts’ restrictions on challengers suspended.
- The decision stressed the seriousness of the allegations but concluded the limited, expedited posture did not permit reliable resolution of disputed factual and legal questions.
Legal Principles
- Vacating a court of appeals stay through emergency in-chambers relief is extraordinary and requires a strong showing.
- Last-minute election litigation is disfavored where time constraints and an undeveloped record prevent confident assessment of the merits and equitable considerations.
- When reasonable judges have differed and factual disputes remain, a single-Justice intervention is generally inappropriate absent a clear entitlement to relief.
- Courts may rely on ordinary election administration to function where emergency federal intervention cannot be responsibly evaluated in time.
Conclusion
The Circuit Justice declined to disturb the Sixth Circuit’s emergency stays on the eve of the election, citing the stringent standard for extraordinary relief, unresolved factual disputes, and institutional limits on last-minute in-chambers review, despite acknowledging serious claims of potential voter intimidation and voting burdens.