## Facts

- Ohio law allowed designated “challengers” (appointed by political parties or certain candidate groups) to be present at polling places and challenge a voter’s eligibility under Ohio Rev. Code §§ 3505.20 and 3505.21.
- In late October 2004, political and voter plaintiffs in Summit County filed a § 1983 action against the Ohio Secretary of State and election officials, alleging that allowing partisan challengers—particularly in urban, predominantly minority precincts—would burden or chill voting and violate due process and equal protection.
- The Northern District of Ohio issued a temporary restraining order barring appointed challengers from being present at polling places for the sole purpose of challenging voters on Election Day (Nov. 2, 2004).
- In a separate Hamilton County case, voter plaintiffs obtained an injunction from the Southern District of Ohio barring challengers (other than election officials) from being in polling places on Election Day.
- Individuals appointed as challengers intervened, and along with state defendants, appealed; the Sixth Circuit consolidated the appeals and addressed them on an emergency basis immediately before the general election.

## Issues

1. Whether Ohio’s poll-challenger statutes, as written and on the emergency record presented, likely violated the Fourteenth Amendment or otherwise unconstitutionally burdened the right to vote so as to warrant injunctive relief.
2. Whether the plaintiffs satisfied the requirements for temporary or preliminary injunctive relief, including likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of harms, and the public interest, given the timing immediately before a statewide election.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit reversed the district courts’ orders granting emergency relief that restricted or barred challengers at polling places.
- The court held that the plaintiffs did not make a sufficient showing on the expedited record to justify disabling Ohio’s longstanding challenger provisions for the imminent election.
- The statutes permitting challengers therefore remained effective for the November 2, 2004 general election.

## Legal Principles

- Challenges to election regulations are evaluated by balancing the character and magnitude of the asserted burden on voting rights against the state’s interests and the extent to which the regulation serves those interests (the Anderson–Burdick framework).
- Emergency injunctions affecting election administration require a strong evidentiary showing; speculative predictions about potential intimidation or selective enforcement are generally inadequate to support broad, categorical relief.
- States have weighty interests in orderly election administration and in deterring and detecting ineligible voting; courts are reluctant to order late changes that risk disruption or confusion absent clear constitutional necessity.
- A facial or across-the-board suspension of an election statute is disfavored where the claim is principally that the statute could be applied in a discriminatory or intimidating manner, without concrete proof that the statutory scheme itself is unconstitutional.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit set aside last-minute federal court orders restricting Ohio’s poll-challenger system, concluding that the plaintiffs’ evidentiary showing did not justify emergency relief disabling the challenger statutes on the eve of a major election.


Summit Cnty. Democratic Cent. & Exec. Comm. v. Blackwell, 388 F.3d 547 (6th Cir. 2004)