On November 16, the 6th circuit dismissed Ralph Nader’s lawsuit against an Ohio law making it illegal for non-residents to circulate independent presidential petitions. The court said the case is moot. It said, “Nothing in our opinion today forecloses Appellants or similarly situated parties from filing suit to challenge the constitutionality of Ohio’s residency and voter-registration requirements for circulators in the context of a future election.”
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
So what does this mean? Can someone explain the phrase “dismissed on procedural grounds”?
Procedural grounds means they didn’t decide the underlying question on the merits – whether out of state people can circulate petitions. They dismissed it as moot – basicly stale, because the election is over. Their decision, in my opinion, is wrong. Election cases are usually addressed via the “capable of repetition yet evading review” exception to the mootness doctrine. The best known case of this was roe v wade, where roe was no longer pregnant by the time the case reached the supreme court. I don’t know whether the case was dismissed with or without prejudice. If without, it might be possible to refile the complaint adding a bit about how this will also affect future elections. Although, in my opinion, the court got it wrong, it seems unlikely the Supreme Court would find the case important enough to reverse the dismissal on appeal. It could actually be moot under certain circumstances, e.g. if the state had repealed the rule, but I don’t think that happened here.
A decision from the Chicago circuit last year, to the effect that grievants should have filed their challenges to election law early, so as to allow declaratory relief and avoid the need for injunctive relief, is pertinent to this case. In the current election cycle, third-party and independent candidates should pre-emptively challenge unconstitutional ballot access law.