finding that, because the plaintiffs had little likelihood of success on the merits, the court “need not address the other three factors for determining whether to grant a TRO or preliminary injunction”
How later courts described this case
- finding that, because the plaintiffs had little likelihood of success on the merits, the court “need not address the other three factors for determining whether to grant a TRO or preliminary injunction”
- concluding that we had jurisdiction to review a TRO regarding election procedures because of “the extraordinary time constraints”
- stating that a court considers the same factors when determining whether to issue a 3 TRO or a preliminary injunction
- conclud[ing] that “the district court abused its discretion in granting the TRO”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I would affirm the district court in regard to both appeals. Thus, I respectfully dissent from the decision by the majority to stay the temporary restraining order. Under the circumstances of this case, the district judge did not abuse his discretion by issuing the temporary restraining order. In deciding defendant’s emergency request to stay the temporary restraining order, we consider the following four factors:
(1) whether the movant has a “strong” likelihood of success on the merits; whether the movant would otherwise suffer irreparable injury; (3) whether issuance of a preliminary injunction would cause substantial harm to others; and (4) whether the public interest would be served by issuance of a preliminary injunction.
Leary v. Daeschner, 228 F.3d 729, 736 (6th Cir.2000); see also Summit County Democratic Cent. & Exec. Comm., et al. v. *363 Blackwell, et al., 388 F.3d 547 , 550 (6th Cir.2004). “All four factors are not prerequisites but are interconnected considerations that must be balanced together.” Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action v. Granholm, 473 F.3d 237, 244 (6th Cir.2006) (citing Mich. Coal. of Radioactive Material Users, Inc. v. Griepentrog, 945 F.2d 150 , 153 (6th Cir.1991)).
Defendant Secretary of State seeks to enforce a directive that would authorize county boards of election to exclude election observers from the sites when simultaneous registration and absentee balloting is occurring. The temporary restraining order issued by the district court against this directive should remain in effect. Defendant has failed to establish irreparable injury by the presence of election observers; the public interest served by an exclusion; or the likelihood of success on the merits. See Help Americans Vote Act of 2002 (“HAVA”), 42 U.S.C. § 15301 , et seq. and U.S. Const, amend. XIV.
As noted by Judge Smith in his order: Moreover, there will be no harm to others if the temporary restraining order is issued. All individuals who seek to register to vote may still do so. Further, those who wish to request an absentee ballot and cast it may do so, and therefore the individual’s right to vote has not been burdened in any way. However, if observers were not permitted, there would be tremendous risk of harm to the general public as voter fraud and intimidation are possible, leading to the undermining of voter confidence as a whole.
I would affirm and therefore respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority’s order that stays the temporary restraining order.