In the case of Williams et al. v. Rhodes, Governor of Ohio, et al., decided in 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Ohio's restrictive ballot access laws violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution by unfairly favoring two major political parties and effectively barring other parties from participating in elections. The American Independent Party had challenged these laws after they were unable to get their presidential candidate George Wallace on the state's election ballot due to stringent requirements for third-party candidates including petition signatures equaling 15% of last gubernatorial vote total among others. In a 7-2 decision led by Justice Hugo Black, it was held that such restrictions significantly burdened both freedom of association and equal protection rights under law thereby striking down Ohio’s electoral scheme as unconstitutional.

In the dissenting opinion for Williams et al. v. Rhodes, Governor of Ohio, et al., Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to strike down Ohio's restrictive ballot access laws was an overreach of judicial power and a violation of federalism principles. He contended that states should have broad discretion in determining their own election laws without interference from the courts unless there is clear evidence of constitutional violations or discriminatory intent. In this case, he did not believe such evidence existed and thus disagreed with the majority's view that Ohio’s electoral system unfairly favored established political parties at the expense of new ones. Furthermore, he warned against setting a precedent where courts could intervene in state affairs based on subjective judgments about fairness rather than objective legal standards.