# Nader v. Blackwell

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · October 29, 2008 · 545 F.3d 459

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9558704

## Case

- **Full name:** Ralph NADER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. Kenneth BLACKWELL, Defendant-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** October 29, 2008
- **Citations:** 545 F.3d 459; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 23261; 2008 WL 4722584
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Moore
- **Judges:** Boggs, Moore, Clay
- **Cited by:** 71 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9558704

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding unconstitutional Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3503.06, which *458stated that "[n]o person shall be entitled ... to sign or circulate any declaration of candidacy or any nominating, initiative, referendum, or recall petition, unless the person is registered as an elector and w…
- holding that Ohio’s requirement that candidate-petition circulators must be Ohio residents and registered to vote in Ohio violated the First Amendment rights of independent presidential candidate
- holding that an Ohio law requiring candidate petition circulators to be registered to vote and residents of the state implicated and violated out-of-state circulators’ First Amendment rights
- finding Ohio’s ban on nonresident circulators of nomination petitions unconstitutional under strict scrutiny review
- holding Ohio’s voter registration and residency requirements for candidate- petition circulators violated plaintiff’s First Amendment rights

## Opinion text

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
I write separately to clarify our holdings today. First, we hold that Nader has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the voter-registration and residency requirements contained in Ohio Rev.Code § 3503.06. 1 Accordingly, we consider the merits of Nader’s constitutional claims. We hold that the voter-registration requirement contained in Ohio Rev.Code § 3503.06 is a severe restriction on political speech which cannot survive strict scrutiny. Similarly, we hold that the residency restriction in § 3503.06 severely limits political speech and is not justified by a sufficient state interest. Therefore, we hold that the voter-registration restriction and the residency restriction contained in § 3503.06 are both unconstitutional in violation of the First Amendment. Finally, we conclude that because these violations were not clearly established in 2004, Blackwell is entitled to qualified immunity.
I also concur in Judge Clay’s opinion, making his opinion the opinion of the court. Judge Clay joins my opinion, making this the opinion of the court.
. The hearing officer excluded some signatures based on an explicit finding of fraud. Lead Op. at pp. 3-4. However, as the lead opinion explains, even when these signatures were excluded, Nader had enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. Id. Nader’s removal from the ballot resulted from the exclusion of signatures gathered by four circulators based on findings that these circulators were not Ohio residents or properly registered voters. Id. at pp. 4-6. Therefore, Nader’s injury is attributable to the requirements contained in § 3503.06 and would be redressed by a decision in Nader’s favor.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9558704. Public record. Not legal advice.