In the Supreme Court of the United States

No. 21-226

In the

Supreme Court of the United States

_________________________

LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF OHIO AND HAROLD THOMAS, Petitioners, V.

DON MICHAEL CRITES, OTTO BEATTY, III, DENNIS BROMMER, CATHERINE A. CUNNINGHAM,

NATASHA KAUFMAN, A. SCOTT NORMAN, AND CHARLETA B. TAVARES,

IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES, Respondents.

_________________________

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals

for the Sixth Circuit _________________________

REPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS _________________________

MARK R. BROWN Capital University

Law School 303 E. Broad St. Columbus, OH 43215

MARK G. KAFANTARIS 625 City Park Ave. Columbus, OH 43206

STUART BANNER Counsel of Record UCLA School of Law Supreme Court Clinic 405 Hilgard Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90095 (310) 206-8506 banner@law.ucla.edu

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................... ii REPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS ........................ 1 I. The Court has jurisdiction. ................................. 1

A. Petitioners have standing. ............................. 1 B. The case is not moot. ...................................... 5 II. This case is an excellent vehicle. ........................ 7 III. This case would have come out differently in other circuits. .................................................. 8 IV. The First Amendment does not allow the states to bar members of small political parties from holding a public office. ................. 10 CONCLUSION ......................................................... 13

ii

CASES

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Adams v. Governor of Delaware, 922 F.3d

166 (3d Cir. 2019), vacated on other grounds sub nom. Carney v. Adams, 141 S.

Ct. 493 (2020) .......................................................... 8

Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780

(1983) ..................................................................... 12 Baird v. State Bar of Arizona, 401 U.S. 1

(1971) ..................................................................... 11

Carney v. Adams, 141 S. Ct. 493 (2020) .................... 2 Common Cause Indiana v. Individual

Members of the Indiana Election Comm'n, 800 F.3d 913 (7th Cir. 2015) ................................... 9 Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl.

Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) .................. 4 Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Husted, 831 F.3d

382 (6th Cir. 2016) .............................................. 5, 6 Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S.

189 (1986) ................................................................ 4 State ex rel. Bender v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of

Elections, 132 N.E.3d 664 (Ohio 2019) ................... 6 Tashjian v. Republican Party, 479 U.S. 208

(1986) ....................................................................... 4 Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520

U.S. 351 (1997) ........................................................ 4

Werme v. Merrill, 84 F.3d 479 (1st Cir. 1996) ........... 9 United Pub. Workers of America v. Mitchell,

330 U.S. 75 (1947) ................................................. 11 Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968) .................. 12

iii

STATUTES Ky. Rev. Stat. ? 121.110 ........................................... 12 Ohio Rev. Code:

? 3501.01(F)(2)(a) ..................................................... 5 ? 3501.01(F)(2)(b) ..................................................... 5 ? 3517.152(A)(2) ........................................................ 6 ? 3517.152(F)(1)(c) .................................................... 2

OTHER AUTHORITY Ohio Sec. of State Advisory 2021-01 ......................... 6

1

REPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS

Respondents assert that the Court lacks jurisdiction, that this case is a poor vehicle, that other circuits agree with the decision below, and that the First Amendment allows the states to bar members of small political parties from holding a public office. All these claims are wrong.

I. The Court has jurisdiction.

Respondents erroneously suggest (BIO 7-15) that petitioners lack standing and that the case is moot. Respondents made the same arguments below--the former in their brief and the latter in a letter filed after oral argument--but the Sixth Circuit rejected them both, for good reason.

A. Petitioners have standing.

Both petitioners have standing. Harold Thomas and the Libertarian Party of Ohio are both suffering concrete, particularized injuries that are directly caused by the categorical exclusion of Libertarian Party members from service on the Ohio Elections Commission.

Harold Thomas. The Sixth Circuit found that "[a]s the OEC [Ohio Elections Commission] concedes, Thomas has introduced evidence that he would like to be on the Ohio Elections Commission, but his membership in the Libertarian Party prevents him from being considered for the seventh commission seat." Pet. App. 7a (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). The Sixth Circuit correctly concluded that in these circumstances, "`a plaintiff need not translate his or her desire for a job into a formal application' because `that application would be merely

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download