On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider a gerrymandering case involving Wisconsin state legislative districts. The court also granted a request by the state to temporarily block the lower court\'s decision until the appeal is resolved. The case is Gill v. Whitford.
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider an appeal in an Ohio voting case in which the plaintiffs sought a court order barring state officials from failing to consider voter forms with immaterial errors. The case is NEOCH v. Husted.
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order (see p. 3) granting the state\'s certiorari petition in an Ohio case involving the maintenance of voter registration lists. At issue is whether Ohio\'s use of voter inactivity as a reason to send \"confirmation notices\" is consistent with federal law. The case is Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute v. Husted.
In a 5-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the District Court, finding that North Carolina\'s Congressional redistricting plan violated the U.S. Constitution. The Court determined that racial considerations unlawfully predominated the designing of the contested districts. The case is Cooper v. Harris.
Judge Orders Georgia to Re-Open Voter Registration for Georgia Special Congressional Election RunoffPosted on May 4, 2017, 5:43 pm
A U.S. District Judge today ordered the state of Georgia to re-open voter registration until at least May 21st ahead of the June 20th runoff for the seat in Georgia\'s Sixth Congressional District. According to Judge Timothy Batten, the plaintiffs could likely succeed in showing that Georgia\'s reduction in the time its citizens had to register was pre-empted by federal law. The case is Georgia NAACP v. Georgia.
Election Law at Moritz is nonpartisan and does not endorse, support, or oppose any candidate, campaign, or party. Opinions expressed by individuals associated with Election Law at Moritz, either on this web site or in connection with conferences or other activities undertaken by the program, represent solely the views of the individuals offering the opinions and not the program itself. Election Law at Moritz institutionally does not represent any clients or participate in any litigation. Individuals affiliated with the program may in their own personal capacity participate in campaign or election activity, or engage in pro bono representation of clients other than partisan candidates or organizations.