In an opinion released today, a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the district court dismissing a lawsuit alleging that Ohio\'s absentee voter system discriminates against blind voters. According to the panel, the district court accepted Ohio Secretary of State John Husted\'s \"fundamental alteration\" defense without any evidentiary support. The case, Hindel v. Husted, was remanded to the district court for further proceedings.
In two 5-4 votes, the U.S. Supreme Court granted stays in a Texas redistricting case involving Congressional and state house questions, putting on hold the district court\'s orders for the Texas legislature to redraw certain district lines. The stays will be in place until the Supreme Court rules on Texas\' appeal, likely next year. The case is Perez v. Abbott.
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.
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.