UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

┐ CYNTHIA BROWN; CARLOS BUFORD; JENNY SUE │ ROWE, │ Plaintiffs-Appellants, > No. 24-3354 │ v. │ │ DAVID YOST, in his official capacity as Ohio Attorney │ General, │ Defendant-Appellee. │ ┘

On Petition for Rehearing En Banc United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus. No. 2:24-cv-01401—James L. Graham, District Judge. Argued En Banc: October 30, 2024

Decided and Filed: November 21, 2024 Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; MOORE, CLAY, GRIFFIN, KETHLEDGE, STRANCH, THAPAR, BUSH, LARSEN, NALBANDIAN, READLER, MURPHY, DAVIS, MATHIS, BLOOMEKATZ, and RITZ, Circuit Judges. _________________

COUNSEL ARGUED EN BANC: Kelsi Brown Corkran, INSTITUTE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL ADVOCACY AND PROTECTION, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. T. Elliot Gaiser, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee. ON SUPPLMENTAL BRIEF: Kelsi Brown Corkran, Elizabeth R. Cruikshank, Alexandra Lichtenstein, William Powell, INSTITUTE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL ADVOCACY AND PROTECTION, Washington, D.C., Mark R. Brown, CAPITAL UNIVERSITY, Columbus, Ohio, Oliver Hall, CENTER FOR COMPETITIVE DEMOCRACY, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. T. Elliot Gaiser, Katie Rose Talley, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee. ON AMICUS BRIEF: Tobias S. Loss-Eaton, Naomi Igra, Stephen Chang, Madison Ferraro, SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae. The court delivered a PER CURIAM opinion. THAPAR, J. (pp. 8–23), delivered a separate concurring opinion. MOORE, J. (pp. 24–36), delivered a separate dissenting opinion, in which CLAY, STRANCH, and DAVIS, JJ., concurred, and KETHLEDGE and RITZ, JJ., No. 24-3354 Brown et al. v. Yost Page 2

concurred in Part II. KETHLEDGE, J. (pp. 37–38), also delivered a separate dissenting opinion, in which MOORE, CLAY, STRANCH, DAVIS, and RITZ, JJ., concurred. _________________

OPINION _________________

PER CURIAM. At issue in this case is whether a request for a preliminary injunction focused on the 2024 election—arising from a challenge to Ohio’s process for placing constitutional initiatives on the ballot—is moot. It is. The targeted election has come and gone, making this request for preliminary relief moot.

Since 1912, Ohio has allowed its citizens to amend the Ohio Constitution through ballot initiatives. Ohio law requires proponents of initiatives to satisfy several requirements before their proposed constitutional amendment appears on the ballot. At the outset, the proponents must submit their proposed amendment, a summary of it, and 1,000 signatures to the Ohio Attorney General, who then must decide whether the summary is a “fair and truthful statement of the proposed law or constitutional amendment.” O.R.C. § 3519.01(A). If the Attorney General rejects the summary, the proponent may seek review in the Ohio Supreme Court. Id. § 3519.01(C). Once the proponent obtains approval of the su