No. 23-535

Jillian Ostrewich v. Teneshia Hudspeth, in Her Official Capacity as Harris County Clerk, et al.

Lower Court: Fifth Circuit
Docketed: 2023-11-20
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Amici (1)Response Waived Experienced Counsel
Tags: ballot-measure election-law first-amendment free-speech polling-place polling-place-censorship union voter-apparel
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw FirstAmendment
Latest Conference: 2024-01-05
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does a state violate the First Amendment when it censors voters' t-shirts with a union logo in a polling place because the union took a position on a ballot measure?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

Questions Presented The First Amendment requires that electioneering statutes that ban certain voter apparel in polling places contain “objective, workable standards” that are “capable of reasoned application” and do not rely on election workers’ “mental index of platforms and positions” of every candidate, political party, and measure on the ballot. Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, 138 S.Ct. 1876, 1888, 1892 (2018). When considering polling place censorship, the decision below omitted the “capable of reasoned application” factor and its corollary that the government cannot rely on election workers’ background knowledge or media consumption to determine “what may come in [and] what must stay out.” Id. at 1891-92. The questions presented are: 1. Does a state violate the First Amendment when it censors voters’ t-shirts with a union logo in a polling place because the union took a position on a ballot measure? 2. On a fully developed record of heavy-handed and haphazard censorship, including arresting, detaining, and turning away voters, does a state’s censorship of voters wearing apparel without reference to anything on the ballot violate the First Amendment? 3.Is the Texas Secretary of State, the chief elections officer in the state, immune from suit seeking injunctive relief from unconstitutional elections statutes because she does not personally enforce them?

Docket Entries

2024-01-08
Petition DENIED.
2023-12-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/5/2024.
2023-12-19
Brief amici curiae of Justice and Freedom Fund, et al. filed (Distributed)
2023-12-06
Waiver of right of respondents Teneshia Hudspeth, et al. to respond filed.
2023-12-05
Waiver of right of respondent Kim Ogg, in Her Official Capacity as Harris County District Attorney to respond filed.
2023-12-04
Waiver of right of respondents Jane Nelson in her official capacity as Secretary of State of Texas; Ken Paxton, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Texas to respond filed.
2023-11-16
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 20, 2023)
2023-08-09
Application (23A114) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until November 17, 2023.
2023-08-03
Application (23A114) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from October 29, 2023 to November 17, 2023, submitted to Justice Alito.

Attorneys

Jane Nelson in her official capacity as Secretary of State of Texas; Ken Paxton, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Texas
Aaron Lloyd NielsonOffice of the Texas Attorney General, Respondent
Aaron Lloyd NielsonOffice of the Texas Attorney General, Respondent
Jillian Ostrewich
Deborah Joyce La FetraPacific Legal Foundation, Petitioner
Deborah Joyce La FetraPacific Legal Foundation, Petitioner
Justice and Freedom Fund, World Faith Foundation, and The Rutherford Institute
James L. HirsenSuite 101, Amicus
James L. HirsenSuite 101, Amicus
Kim Ogg, in Her Official Capacity as Harris County District Attorney
Meagan Therese ScottHarris County District Attorney's Office, Respondent
Meagan Therese ScottHarris County District Attorney's Office, Respondent
Teneshia Hudspeth, et al.
Seth Barrett HopkinsHarris County Attorney's Office, Respondent
Seth Barrett HopkinsHarris County Attorney's Office, Respondent