UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

┐ BOONE COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY EXECUTIVE │ COMMITTEE, HARDIN COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY │ EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, and JESSAMINE COUNTY │ REPUBLICAN PARTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, │ Plaintiffs-Appellants, > No. 24-5783 │ v. │ H. DAVID WALLACE, LAURA MARIE BENNETT, JESSICA │ BURKE, RICHARD LARKIN, ADRIAN MENDIONDO, │ THOMAS O’BRIEN, J. BISSELL ROBERTS, and JOHN │ STEFFEN, in their official capacities as board members │ of the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance, │ Defendants-Appellees. │ ┘

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Frankfort. No. 3:24-cv-00049—Gregory F. Van Tatenhove, District Judge. Argued: December 4, 2024

Decided and Filed: March 18, 2025

Before: MOORE, GILMAN, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.

_________________

COUNSEL ARGUED: Christopher Wiest, CHRIS WIEST, ATTY AT LAW, PLLC, Covington, Kentucky, for Appellants. Leslie M. Saunders, KENTUCKY REGISTRY OF ELECTION FIANANCE, Frankfort, Kentucky for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Christopher Wiest, Theodore J. Roberts, CHRIS WIEST, ATTY AT LAW, PLLC, Covington, Kentucky, Thomas Bruns, BRUNS CONNELL VOLLMAR ARMSTRONG LLC, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellants. Leslie M. Saunders, KENTUCKY REGISTRY OF ELECTION FIANANCE, Frankfort, Kentucky for Appellees. Matthew F. Kuhn, John H. Heyburn, Elizabeth Hedges, OFFICE OF THE KENTUCKY ATTORNEY GENERAL, Frankfort, Kentucky, for Amicus Curiae.

MOORE, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which GILMAN, J., concurred. GRIFFIN, J. (pp. 32–40), delivered a separate dissenting opinion. No. 24-5783 Boone Cnty. Republican Party v. Wallace Page 2

_________________

OPINION _________________

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Three Kentucky Republican Party county executive committees (“the executive committees”) challenge the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance’s (“the Registry”) requirement that they register as a political issues committee to expend funds in support of a state constitutional amendment that was on the November 2024 general-election ballot. The district court denied the executive committees’ application for a preliminary injunction. Because we initially construed the Registry’s requirement as a ban on the executive committees’ speech, we granted an injunction pending appeal of the preliminary- injunction denial. Upon further briefing and oral argument, we now conclude that the Registry has imposed only a disclosure requirement on the executive committees, which is sufficiently tailored to the Registry’s interests in providing the public with timely and accurate information about ballot-issue campaigns. We accordingly AFFIRM the district court’s denial of the motion for a preliminary injunction.

I. BACKGROUND A. Statutory and Regulatory Framework

This case concerns the constitutionality of a part of Kentucky’s campaign-finance regime and the Registry’s interpretati