Plaintiff Alison Kareem appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendants Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections, and Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney Michael C. O’Malley. Kareem sued Defendants on the grounds that two state election laws, Ohio Rev. Code §§ 3501.35(A)(4) and 3599.20, violated her free speech rights under the First Amendment by prohibiting her from displaying her marked ballot to others. The district court granted Defendants’ motions for summary judgment because it concluded that Kareem lacked Article III standing. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the district court’s order and REMAND for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

I. BACKGROUND On October 20, 2020, while voting in the November 2020 general election, Plaintiff Alison Kareem took a photograph with her marked ballot, colloquially referred to as a “ballot selfie.” According to Kareem, she wished to display this photograph online to mobilize support for her preferred candidates. However, she did not display the photograph, nor has she displayed any ballot photographs in subsequent elections, because of Ohio laws that prohibit the display of marked ballots. “If state law did not prohibit the posting or publication of a ballot selfie,” Kareem states that she “would have posted on-line and disseminated the ballot selfie from October 2020” and “taken, posted, and disseminated a ballot selfie at subsequent elections.” Kareem Decl., R. 28, Page ID #570.1 The state laws to which Kareem refers are Ohio Rev. Code § 3501.35(A)(4) and Ohio Rev. Code § 3599.20, both of which carry a potential term of imprisonment. Section 3501.35(A)(4) prohibits “[e]xhibit[ing]” a “ballot which the elector intends to cast.” Ohio Rev.

1 Sometime in 2015 or 2016, Kareem also temporarily posted a subsection of a ballot pertaining to a medical marijuana ballot initiative. However, Kareem quickly took down the photograph upon learning that ballot photographs were illegal under Ohio law.  No. 23-3330 Kareem v. Cuyahoga Cnty. Bd. of Elections Page 3 Code. § 3501.35(A)(4). A violation is a first-degree misdemeanor, see id. § 3599.40, and is punishable by up to six months’ imprisonment, see id. § 2929.24. Section 3599.20 prohibits an elector from “allow[ing] the elector’s ballot to be seen by another” with the “apparent intent[]” to reveal “how the elector is about to vote.” Id. § 3599.20. A violation of § 3599.20 is a felony in the fifth degree, id., which is punishable by up to twelve months’ imprisonment, id. § 2929.14(A)(5).

On October 30, 2020, Kareem filed a complaint against Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, as well as the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections and Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney Michael C. O’Malley, claiming that Ohio Rev. Code § 3501.35(A)(4) and Ohio Rev. Code § 3599.20 restricted her core political speech in violation of the First Amendment. For this alleged harm, Kareem sought declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and nominal damages.

Subsequently, both Kareem and Defendants moved for summary judgment on various grounds. Among other possible grounds for summary judgment, Defendants argued in their motions that Kareem lacked standing. Without reaching the merits of Kareem’s claim, the district court agreed that Kareem lacked standing and granted Defendants’ motions for summary judgment on this basis. Kareem filed a timely notice of appeal on April 18, 2023, and she now argues that this Court should reverse the grant of summary judgment to Defendants and remand to the district court for further proceedings.

II. DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review We review a grant of summary judgment for lack of standing de novo. See Hammoud v. Equifax In