In an act signed by Ohio Governor Mike DeWine this summer, state legislators extended a law that already prohibited foreign nationals from contributing to political candidates, now banning them from spending money on ballot campaigns as well. Nonprofits and several individuals, including noncitizens, filed a lawsuit to prevent the law from taking effect.
The plaintiffs argued that the law infringed on their First Amendment rights. In their request for a preliminary injunction, they stated that unless the law is blocked, it would “broadly chill discussion of ballot issues and impede the fundamental right to advocate collectively, threatening both noncitizens and those who associate with them with substantial criminal penalties.”
Ohio officials defended the law as a legitimate exercise of state authority, but on August 31, Judge Watson sided with the plaintiffs and issued an injunction as the case proceeds.
The judge highlighted that lawful permanent residents, who are legally in the United States despite being born in another country, pay taxes and can serve in the military.
“Where is the danger of people beholden to foreign interests higher than in the U.S. military? Nowhere,” he wrote in a 53-page ruling.
“So, if the U.S. federal government trusts (such residents) to put U.S. interests first in the military (of all places), how could this court hold that it does not trust them to promote U.S. interests in their political spending? It cannot.”
The ruling halted the enforcement of the law’s restrictions on political spending, barring Ohio officials from applying it to anyone who contributes money to ballot measures.
This includes foreign nationals temporarily residing in the country. Although Judge Watson acknowledged that Ohio generally has the authority to impose such a ban, he issued a broad injunction to avoid rewriting the law. Consequently, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost’s office is prohibited from enforcing the law as it stands.
Yost said that the court should have imposed a more limited injunction.
“We agree with the court: ‘Ohio has a compelling interest in limiting the participation of foreign nationals in activities of democratic self-government, and in thereby preventing foreign influence over state political processes,’” Yost said.
“We disagree that the General Assembly violated the Constitution, but even taking the court on its own terms, we believe the court should have limited its remedy to the only constitutional problem it identified: restricting spending by legally present foreign nationals. We will seek clarification of the court’s order and are weighing further appeal.”
OPAWL–Building AAPI Feminist Leadership, the lead plaintiff, did not return a request for comment.
The plaintiffs also claimed that the law violated their 14th Amendment rights, but Judge Watson chose not to address that issue. He focused instead on the First Amendment arguments, determining that the plaintiffs are likely to prevail on those grounds.
No comments:
Post a Comment