File Na me: 12a0188n.06 NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON

No. 10-4006 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR THE SI XTH CI RCUI T OHI O COUNCI L 8 AMERI CAN FED ERATI ON O F S T A T E , C O U N T Y & M U N IC IP A L E M P L O Y E E S , A F L

- C I O ; H O N O R A B L E NADI NE AL L EN; HONORABL E PETER J

. C O R R I G A N ; M A R T H A G O O D ; O H I O DEMOCRATI C PARTY, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v. S E C R E T A R Y O F S T A T E J E N N I F E R BRUNN ER, I

N HER OFF I CI AL CAPACI TY, ET AL ., Def

endants-A

ppellees. ON APPEALFROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE SOUT HERN DI STRI CT OF OH I O

/ Be fore : MARTI

N and MCKEAG UE, Circuit J udg es, and CAL DWEL L

. * P E R C URI AM. Ohio Council 8 Americ an Fe deration of State, County , and Municip al Employ ees, AFL -CI O, and the other plaintiffs appea l the district court’s de nial of their motion for

a preliminary injunction to enjoin the enfor ceme nt of Ohio Revised Code § 3505.04, which prohibits the inclusion of judicial office candida tes’ political party aff iliations on Ohio’s nonpartisan g ener al

J udg e Ka ren K . Caldwell, United S tates Dist rict J udg e for the S outhern District of Ohio, * sitti ng by desig nation.No. 10-4006

Ohio Council 8 Am. Fed’n, e t al. v. Sec’ y of State, et al. Pag e 2 elec tion ballots. Plaintiffs filed suit in district court and soug ht to enjoin the enfor ceme nt of section 3505.04 on the g rounds that it violates Plaintiffs’ First Amendmen t rig hts and denies them equal protec tion under the law. On appea l, Plaintiffs arg ue that, beca use the statute is unconstitutional and Ohio’s interests are neither comp el l i n g nor rea sonable, the district court err ed in deny ing their reque st to enjoin enforc ement of se ction 3505.04. For the following rea sons, we AF F IRM

. The de cision to gr ant or de ny a pre liminary injunction is a “ma tter within the discre tion of the district court and is thus revie wed for abuse of discretion.” Tennessee Scrap Rec ycle rs Ass’n v. Bredese n , 556 F.3d 442, 447 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Certified Restoration Dry Cleaning Network, L.L.C

. v. T

enke Corp. , 511 F.3d 535, 540 (6th Cir. 2007)); see also Hunter v. Hamilton Cn t y. Bd. of Elections , 635 F.3d 219, 233-34 (6th Cir. 2011) (noting that this Court revie ws a district court’s deter mination as to g ranting or denying a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion). We revie w the district court’s leg al conclusions de novo and its fac tual finding s for clea r err or. Ce r t i

fied Restoration Dry Cleaning Network , 511 F.3d a t 541 (citation omitted). District courts consider four fac tors when deter mining whether to g rant a preliminary injunction: “(1) whethe r t h e m o vant has demonstrated a likelihood of succe ss on the merits; (2) whether the m o vant will suffe r irrepa rable harm if the injunction is not issued; (3) whether the injunction will cause substantial harm to others if issued; and (4) whether g ranting the injunction will

serve the public interest.” Bredese n , 556 F.3d at 447 (citation omitted). Be cause the district court’s deter mination of whether the movant is likely to succe ed on the merits is a question of law, we revie w i t de novo. Certified Restoration Dry Cl eaning N etwork , 511 F.3d at 541. We revie w for

an abuse of discretion the district court’s “ultimate deter mination” of whether the four fac tors weig hNo. 10-4006

Ohio Council 8 Am. Fed’n, e t al. v. Sec’ y of State, et al. Pag e 3 in f avor of or ag ainst g ranting the pre liminary injunction; this revie w is “ highly defe rential” to the decision of the di strict cour t

. Id

. “T h e district court’s determination wil l be dis turbed only if the district c ourt relied upon clea rly err oneous finding s of fa ct, improperly applied the g overning law, or used a n err oneous leg al standar d.” Id. (citation and inter nal quotation marks omitted). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Plaintiffs’ reque st for a preliminary injunction. We ag ree with the di strict court that Plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of succ ess

on the merits of their arg ument th at the prohibition of political party desig nations next to judicial candida tes’ names b u rd en s t heir rig hts to association and fre e speec h and is not outweig hed by Ohio’s interests. See Burdick v. Takushi , 504 U.S. 428, 434 (1992 ) (e v al u at ing constitutional challeng es to sta te elec tion laws under a “fle x ible” approa ch, and finding that a reg ulation must be “nar rowly draw n to advanc e a state interest of compelling importance ” wher e First and Four teenth Amendment rig hts are sever ely rest ri ct ed , but that the State’s “important reg ulatory interests are g ener ally sufficie nt to justify ” those restric tions that are “re asonable [and] nondiscriminatory ”). The district court did not err in finding that Plaintiffs failed to show irrepa rable harm, that the balanc e of equities favor ed Ohio, and that the public interest weig hs in favor of not g ranting the injunction. The district court did not abuse its discretion in deter mining that the four fac tors weig hed in favor of denying Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Moreove r, at the time the district court denied the injunction, it expressed a desire to let the parties eng ag e in discovery and arg ument

on the issue and cited no need for “expediency .” A y ear and a half later a merits proce eding has not y et been held; the publ ic i n t er est would be best serve d by such a proce eding and not by enjoining Ohio from enfor cing a state elec tion statute befor e an upcoming elec tion. See Hunter , 635 F.3d atNo. 10-4006

Ohio Council 8 Am. Fed’n, e t al. v. Sec’ y of State, et al. Pag e 4 234 (noting that “conside rations specific to elec tion case s and exigenc ies of time ma y be weig hed, but that it is still nece ssary , as a proce dural matter, for [us] to g ive defe renc e to the discretion of the District Court” (alter ation in orig inal) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). We there fore AF F IRM the orde r of the district c ourt.