On March 2, the Ohio Secretary of State again asked for more time to respond to Schmitt v LaRose, 19-974. This is the case over whether it is constitutional for local election officials to reject an initiative petition, not because it doesn’t have enough valid signatures, but because the election officials think the initiative would be invalid or unconstitutional if the voters passed it.
The Ohio Secretary of State had already obtain one thirty-day extension from the U.S. Supreme Court, but now wants a second 30-day extention. If the request is granted, the Ohio response will be due May 6. The U.S. Supreme Court virtually always grants these time extensions.
Given that the Supreme Court generally grants extensions, the logically expected strategy from states opposed to increasing ballot access is to stall…stall..stall, until the issue becomes moot.