RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
                                 Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)
                                        File Name: 24a0133p.06

                    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.

                                Decided and Filed: June 17, 2024

         Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; MOORE, CLAY, GIBBONS, GRIFFIN,
        KETHLEDGE, STRANCH, THAPAR, BUSH, LARSEN, NALBANDIAN,
      READLER, MURPHY, DAVIS, MATHIS, and BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judges.
                                       _________________

                                             COUNSEL

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC: T. Elliot Gaiser, Katie Rose Talley, OFFICE
OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee. ON RESPONSE:
Mark R. Brown, CAPITAL UNIVERSITY, Columbus, Ohio, Oliver Hall, CENTER FOR
COMPETITIVE DEMOCRACY, Washington, D.C., Kelsi Brown Corkran, Alexandra
Lichtenstein, William Powell, INSTITUTE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL ADVOCACY AND
PROTECTION, Washington, D.C., for Appellants.
 No. 24-3354                          Brown, et al. v. Yost                               Page 2


                                      _________________

ORDER

                                      _________________

       A majority of the Judges of this Court in regular active service has voted for rehearing en
banc of this case. Sixth Circuit Rule 35(b) provides as follows:

       A decision to grant rehearing en banc vacates the previous opinion and judgment
       of the court, stays the mandate, and restores the case on the docket as a pending
       appeal.
       Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the previous decision and judgment of this court are
vacated, the mandate is stayed, and this case is restored to the docket as a pending appeal. It is
further ORDERED that the pending Motion to Compel Defendant-Appellee to Comply with the
Court’s Order (Dkt. 35) and Motion to Stay Judgment and Issuance of the Mandate (Dkt. 36) are
denied as moot.

       The parties are directed to file a notice to the court as soon as possible but no later than
Tuesday, June 18, 2024, at 12:00 p.m. (Eastern) addressing the following: (1) whether
additional briefing is desired, and if so, a proposed schedule for the submission of briefs; and
(2) whether oral argument before the en banc court is desired, and if so, a proposed schedule and
format for oral argument.     The parties should confer on their proposals for briefing and
argument. If the parties reach consensus, they should file a joint notice. If the parties do not
reach a consensus, each party should file a separate notice. After consideration of the parties’
position(s), the Court will issue an order with the requirements for submission of this matter for
en banc consideration.

                                     ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT




                                     ____________________________________
                                     Kelly L. Stephens, Clerk