6th Circuit Greenlights Ohio’s Proof-Of-Citizenship Law

A federal appellate court ruled on Wednesday that Ohio can enforce its law requiring proof-of-citizenship to vote in the midterm elections.

In a 2-1 decision, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals paused a preliminary injunction issued by Ohio-based Senior District Judge Solomon Oliver Jr. last month. The Obama appointee’s order sought to block the Buckeye State from enforcing its statutory requirement that individuals provide documentary proof-of-citizenship when registering to vote.

As described by Courthouse News, Oliver argued that the contested provision is “preempted by the National Voter Registration Act and increases the likelihood that U.S. citizens fail to register for elections.” The injunction also suspended “the requirement for documentation ahead of the Oct. 5 registration deadline for the midterm election.”

After initial review, 6th Circuit Judges John Nalbandian and Whitney Hermandorfer, both Trump appointees, determined that the four factors used to decide whether to stay Oliver’s order all favor Ohio. Such factors include the likelihood that Ohio “will defeat the injunction,” the “irreparable harm” Ohio will suffer if the injunction is allowed to remain in place, “the prospect of harm to others,” and “the public interest.”

“At this juncture, Ohio appears primed to succeed in vacating the injunction on threshold grounds. Because those grounds are sufficient to warrant entry of a stay, we need not address the merits of the district court’s NVRA analysis,” the majority ruled.

Nalbandian and Hermandorfer went on to note that Oliver likely lacked jurisdiction to enter a preliminary injunction and that the left-wing challengers likely lacked standing to bring their suit. The judges also determined that the challengers’ lawsuit suffers from a “problem of mootness” because they have already “obtained Ohio drivees licenses and registered to vote.”

The majority furthermore raised concerns that Oliver’s injunction “appears to run afoul” of the Purcell principle, a judicial doctrine that says federal courts should avoid changing state election rules on the eve of an election. “Recent Purcell precedents,” the court ruled, “cut in favor of a stay.”

“On balance, the stay factors support Ohio’s request for relief. We therefore GRANT Ohio’s motion for a stay of the district court’s injunction pending appeal. We DENY Ohio’s motion for entry of an administrative stay as moot,” the court wrote.

Writing in dissent, Judge Kevin Ritz, a Biden appointee, argued that Ohio is “not likely to show that the district court in any way abused its discretion.” Unlike his colleagues, he claimed that the challengers likely possess standing to bring their suit, that the case is not moot, and that the stay factors weigh against Ohio.

Ohio enjoyed support from election integrity groups such as the Honest Elections Project and the Center for Election Confidence ahead of Wednesday’s ruling. Both organizations filed a joint brief asking the 6th Circuit to pause Oliver’s injunction for several of the reasons cited by the majority in its decision.