On March 11, Ohio filed this brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in Thompson v DeWine, 20-1072. The issue is whether Ohio should have given some ballot access relief to initiative proponents during 2020. The state says the case is moot. The state says that ballot access cases are moot once the election is over unless the same plaintiffs claim they want to get on the ballot in future elections.

This is an error. In 1969 the U.S. Supreme Court said in Moore v Ogilvie that ballot access cases are not moot just because the election is over, and it doesn’t matter whether the plaintiffs claim they want to be on the ballot in future elections or not. This is clear from the Court’s Opinion in Richardson v Remirez, 418 US 24, a 1973 case that discussed Ogilvie v Moore. The Court said on page 35, “the particular candidacy was not apt to be revived in a future election.” The particular candidacy in Moore v Ogilvie were by a group of unpledged independent presidential electors, who wanted to be on the ballot in 1968 in Illinois so voters could cast a vote for ending U.S. involvement in Vietnam. They expressed no interest in running again in 1972.