- Alumna thrives as elections counsel in office of Ohio Secretary of State
- Professor Edward B. Foley earns fellowship
- Campaign Finance: Balancing Political Inequality with Free Speech, with Rick Hasen
- Election Day Brings Victories for Many Moritz Alumni
- Foley writes op-ed in New York Times for Election Day
Major Pending Cases
This is a list of pending election law litigation cases that Election Law at Moritz is currently monitoring.
Ohio Organizing Collaborative v. HustedCase Page - last updated on May 26, 2016 (3:14 PM)
Whether Ohio regulations and laws regarding early voting, provisional and absentee ballots, and voter registration violate the First, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, the Voting Rights Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Complaint filed 5/8/15. Answer filed 6/10/15. Bench trial held November 2015. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed 5/24/16.
Hindel v. HustedCase Page - last updated on May 13, 2016 (9:41 AM)
Whether Ohio is violating the Americans with Disabilities Act by allegedly not providing equal opportunity for blind voters to vote absentee and access the Ohio Secretary of State's voter services website.
Complaint filed 12/7/15. Motion for preliminary injunction filed 12/7/15. Answer filed 2/5/16. Motion for judgment on the pleadings filed 2/5/16. Plaintiffs' response in opposition filed 2/29/16. Motion for permanent injunction filed 4/816. Defendant's memorandum in opposition to motion for permanent injunction filed 4/25/16. Opinion and order granting defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings filed 5/11/16.
Libertarian Party of Ohio v. HustedCase Page - last updated on May 26, 2016 (3:20 PM)
Does Secretary Husted's enforcement of residency requirements for circulators of candidates' nominating petitions violate the First Amendment?
Does Secretary Husted's enforcement of residency requirements for circulators of candidates' nominating petitions, as applied, violate the First Amendment?
Opinion and Order Granting Summary Judgment to Defendant issued 3/16/15. Opinion and Order finding Ohio minor party ballot access law constitutional filed 10/16/15. Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count 7 by Defendant Husted on 10/30/15. Opinion and order on discovery issues filed 2/5/16. Opinion and order granting summary judgment to defendant filed 5/20/16.
True the Vote, Inc. v. IRSCase Page - last updated on April 14, 2016 (6:42 PM)
1) Whether True the Vote is exempt from Federal Income tax as a 501(c)(3) organization.
2) Whether the IRS violated True the Vote's First Amendment right of freedom of speech and association.
3) Whether the IRS overstepped its statutory authority in requesting additional information from True the Vote.
Complaint filed 5/21/13. Motion to Dismiss counts 1, 2, 3, and 5 filed 9/26/13. Plaintiff's motion to stay agency action filed 11/15/13. True the Vote's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss on 11/26/13. Multiple Replies Supporting Motion to Dismiss on 12/17/13. Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Expedited Discovery filed 6/30/14. Order denying Motion for Discovery and Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed 8/7/14. Order granting Motion to Dismiss filed 10/22/14. Plaintiff's Notice of Appeal filed 12/18/14. Order that appeal be held in abeyance filed 5/8/15. Oral argument at D.C. Circuit held 4/14/16.
United States v. North CarolinaCase Page - last updated on June 5, 2015 (9:22 AM)
Issue 1: Does House Bill 589 deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act 42 U.S.C. §1793?
Issue 2: Was House Bill 589 enacted and enforced with the purpose of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act 42 U.S.C. §1793, the Fourteenth Amendment, and Fifteenth Amendment?
For latest updates, see League of Women Voters of North Carolina v. Howard.
Related cases: League of Women Voters of North Carolina v. Howard and North Carolina NAACP v. McCrory.
In re 2016 Primary ElectionCase Page - last updated on May 12, 2016 (12:52 PM)
(1) Whether a federal court has jurisdiction to order state elections officials to extend polling hours or re-open polls with no complaint filed, no identified plaintiff, no federal cause of action or basis for federal jurisdiction identified, and no state action at issue.
(2) Whether a federal court may grant relief without identifying any state action that constituted a violation of law to be remedied.
(3) Whether a federal court may grant relief with no process preceding the decision, specifically, (a) no filed complaint or motion, (b) no advance notice to Defendant Ohio Secretary of State or affected County Boards of Elections; and (c) none of the prerequisites of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 satisfied, such as the notice under Rule 65(a), requirements to forgo notice under Rule 65(b)(1), or a stated basis for the lack of notice under Rule 65(b)(2).
(4) Whether a federal court may order polls to be kept open in an order issued after closing time was reached, in light of this Court's and the Supreme Court's repeated admonishments discouraging such last-minute orders, and in light of the impossibility of contacting hundreds of polling locations that were already closing before the order issued.
Order issued 3/15/16. Notices of Appeal filed 4/11/16. Order directing clerk to appoint counsel to defend District Court order filed 5/2/16. Appearance entered by attorney Rachel Bloomekatz to defend District Court order 5/11/16.
SEIU v. HustedCase Page - last updated on May 16, 2016 (11:08 AM)
Whether the failure to ensure that all provisional ballots are properly counted violates the 14th Amendment, the right to vote, the 17th amendment and/or federal voting statutes.
For latest updates, see NEOCH v. Husted.
Perez v. TexasCase Page - last updated on May 16, 2016 (2:44 PM)
Whether Texas' redistricting plan violates the Constitution because it does not make a good faith effort to maintain population equality and treats inmates as residents of the counties in which they are incarcerated.
Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Debbie Allen et al filed 10/14/15. Order denying preliminary injunction filed 11/16/15. Order for supplemental briefing in light of Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission filed 4/20/16.
Alabama Democratic Conference v. AlabamaCase Page - last updated on May 9, 2016 (1:41 PM)
Whether Alabama’s effort to redraw the lines of each majority-black district to have the same black population as it would have using 2010 census data as applied to the former district lines, when combined with the state's new goal of significantly reducing population deviation among districts, amounted to an unconstitutional racial quota and racial gerrymandering that is subject to strict scrutiny and that was not justified by the putative interest of complying with the non-retrogression aspect of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act; and whether these plaintiffs have standing to bring such a constitutional claim.
Appellees' Motion to Dismiss or Affirm filed in U.S. Supreme Court 4/21/14. Appellants' Reply filed 5/5/14. Appellees' Brief filed 10/9/14. Appellants' Reply Brief filed 10/28/14. U.S. Supreme Court Opinion filed 3/25/15. Judgment filed 4/27/15. District Court order denying summary judgment filed 4/28/15. Plaintiffs' post-remand brief filed 6/12/15. Defendants' post-remand brief filed 7/24/15. Order for plaintiffs to file new statewide redistricting plan 8/28/15. Defendants' Notice of Supplemental Authority (U.S. Supreme Court case of Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission) filed 4/22/16.
U.S. Supreme Court case decided with Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, No. 13-1138.
Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting CommissionCase Page - last updated on April 20, 2016 (11:46 AM)
1. Does the desire to gain partisan advantage for one political party justify intentionally creating over-populated legislative districts that result in tens of thousands of individual voters being denied Equal Protection because their individual votes are devalued, violating the one-person, one-vote principle?
2. Does the desire to obtain favorable preclearance review by the Justice Department permit the creation of legislative districts that deviate from the one-person, one-vote principle? And, even if creating unequal districts to obtain preclearance approval was once justified, is this still a legitimate justification after Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S.Ct. 2612 (2013)?
3. Was the Arizona redistricting commission correct to disregard the majorityminority rule and rely on race and political party affiliation to create Hispanic “influence” districts?
Jurisdictional Statement (filed 8/25/14). Motion to dismiss or affirm filed by appellees Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, et al. (filed 11/13/14). Brief of appellee Arizona Secretary of State Michele Reagan in support of appellants (filed 09/04/15). Brief of appellants Wesley W. Harris, et al. (filed 09/04/15). Brief of appellee Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (filed 10/26/15). Oral argument held 12/8/15. Opinion filed 4/20/16.
Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute and NEOCH v. HustedCase Page - last updated on May 25, 2016 (12:57 PM)
Whether the removal of eligible voters from Ohio’s voter-registration rolls, as a result of those voters’ decisions not to participate in recent elections, violates the roll-maintenance provisions of the National Voter Registration Act and has caused eligible Ohio citizens to be deprived of the right to vote.
Complaint 04/06/2016. Answer filed 4/28/16. Amended complaint filed 5/17/16.
Disclosure: EL@M Senior Fellow Daniel Tokaji is involved in this case as one of the cooperating attorneys for the ACLU of Ohio. No EL@M member who participates in any lawsuit covered on the EL@M website is involved in generating the website's information or analysis on that lawsuit.
Frank v. WalkerCase Page - last updated on May 26, 2016 (2:54 PM)
Whether Wisconsin voter ID legislation is unconstitutional as applied to certain classes of eligible Wisconsin voters; more specifically, whether the legislation unduly burdens the fundamental right to vote under the Equal Protection Clause, violates the Twenty-Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments as an unconstitutional poll tax, and violates the Equal Proection Clause in arbitrarily refusing to accept certain identification documents.
District Court Opinion and Order issued 10/19/2015. Appellants' Briefs on appeal in 7th Circuit filed 12/28/15. Appellee's brief in 7th Circuit filed 1/26/16. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion reversing District Court filed 4/12/16.
LULAC v. DeiningerCase Page - last updated on May 12, 2016 (1:04 PM)
Whether Wisconsin's voter ID law violates the right to vote of African-Americans and Latinos.
For latest updates, see Frank v. Walker.
North Carolina NAACP v. McCroryCase Page - last updated on June 17, 2015 (11:18 AM)
Do the provisions of HB 589 (Voter ID requirements) violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (42 U.S.C. 1973) and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the Constitution?
For latest updates, see League of Women Voters of North Carolina v. Howard.
Related cases: League of Women Voters of North Carolina v. Howard and United States v. North Carolina.
League of Women Voters of North Carolina v. HowardCase Page - last updated on May 10, 2016 (3:55 PM)
1. Does the reduction in early voting days, loss of same-day registration, and elimination of out of precinct provisional voting opportunities violate the Fourteenth Amendment?
2. Did the Generally Assembly have a discriminatory purpose, which would violate the Fourteenth Amendment, in passing H.B. 589?
3. Do the limits on early voting days, same day registration, and out of precinct provisional voting violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (42 U.S.C. 1973)?
4. If the Court finds discrimination against African Americans, should North Carolina be covered under Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act?
Currie v. North CarolinaCase Page - last updated on May 6, 2016 (3:47 PM)
1. Do Voter ID requirements violate Article VI of the North Carolina Constitution?
2. Do the Photo ID costs violate Article I Section 10 of the North Carolina Constitution?
3. Do the Photo ID property requirements violate Article I Section 11 of the North Carolina Constitution?
4. Do Photo ID requirements impose burdens on classes of voters in violation of Article I Section 19 of the North Carolina Constitution?
5. Do the Photo ID requirements create an undue burden on the right to vote in violation of Article 1 Section 19 of the North Carolina Constitution?
6. Does the State purposefully discriminate against African-American voters in violation Article 1 Section 19 of the North Carolina Constitution?
Complaint filed 8/12/13. Answer filed 11/14/13. Plaintiff's Motion for Judicial Conference filed 9/16/14. Order regarding Motion for Judgment on Pleadings filed 2/24/15. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss filed 6/30/15. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend and Motion for Temporary Stay until after primary election filed 7/2/15.
Veasey v. AbbottCase Page - last updated on May 25, 2016 (12:30 PM)
Does SB 14 violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973, by denying the right to vote on account of race and language minority?
Does SB 14 violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by purposely denying minority voters equal protection for registration and voting?
Does SB 14 violate the Fifteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by purposely denying minority voters the right to vote?
Does SB 14 severely burden or facially discriminate against a class of voters without a legitimate governmental interest and violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?
Does SB 14 restrict freedom of speech and association in violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?
Does SB 14 create a poll tax in violation of the Fourteenth and Twenty-First Amendments of the U.S. Constitution?
District Court opinion striking down voter ID law filed 10/9/14. Fifth Circuit Opinion filed 8/5/15. Petition for Rehearing En Banc filed 8/28/15. Application to Vacate Fifth Circuit Stay filed in U.S. Supreme Court 3/25/16. Order Denying Application to Vacate Stay filed 4/29/16.
NEOCH v. HustedCase Page - last updated on May 12, 2016 (12:47 PM)
Original Issues: (1) Whether Ohio's voter ID laws are unconstitutional as "confusing, vague, and impossible to apply" in violation of the right to vote; whether the laws are unconstitutional because they apply only to in-person voters and not to absentee voters; whether they are unconstitutional because they may bar voters who do not have required identification from voting on Election Day; whether they are unconstitutional because only some forms of ID must have current address; whether they are unconstitutional as a poll tax. (2) Whether Ohio's provisional-ballot laws are unconstitutionally vague and therefore violate Equal Protection and Due Process.
Subsequent Issue: Whether an April 2010 Consent Decree requiring that provisional ballots improperly voted as a result of poll worker error still be counted is valid under Ohio law.
Current Issue: Whether Ohio SB 205 and 216 unlawfully discriminate against minority voters and unconstitutionally burden the right to vote.
Plaintiffs' and Defendants' trial briefs filed 3/10/16. Trial at District Court held March 2016. Parties' proposed findings of fact filed 4/28/16. Defendants' post-trial brief filed 5/5/16. Plaintiffs' response to defendants' proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law filed 5/5/16.
Related Case: SEIU v. Husted
Disclosure: EL@M Senior Fellow Daniel Tokaji is one of the attorneys representing amici League of Women Voters of Ohio and Common Cause of Ohio in this case. No EL@M member who participates in any lawsuit covered on the EL@M website is involved in generating the website's information or analysis on that lawsuit.
One Wisconsin Institute v. NicholCase Page - last updated on May 25, 2016 (12:26 PM)
Whether several Wisconsin statutes (Act 23, Act 240, Act 76, Act 177, Act 75, Act 227, Wis. Stat. §§ 6.855-.86, Wis. Stat. § 5.02, Wis. Stat. § 6.34, Wis. Stat. § 6.79, and Wis. Stat. § 6.97) are in violation of: Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the First Amendment, the Fifteenth Amendment, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Counts are as follows.
Count I: Violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
Count II: Undue Burdens on the Right to Vote in Violation of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
Count III: Disparate Treatment of Voters without a Rational Basis in Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
Count IV: Partisan Fencing in Violation of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
Count V: Abridgment or Denial of the Right to Vote on the Basis of Race in Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Fifteenth Amendment
Count VI: Abridgment or Denial of the Right to Vote on the Basis of Age in Violation of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment
Complaint filed on 5/29/15. Amended complaint filed 6/22/16. Answer filed 7/22/15. Motion to Dismiss filed 7/22/15. Opinion and Order on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss filed 12/17/15. Motion for summary judgment filed by defendants 1/11/16. Second amended complaint filed 3/25/16. Trial beginning May 16.
Lee v. Virginia Board of ElectionsCase Page - last updated on May 26, 2016 (2:56 PM)
1. Whether Virginia's voter ID law and long wait times to vote violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
2. Whether Virginia's voter ID law imposes an undue burden on the right to vote, and results in disparate treatment amongst voters in violation of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
3. Whether the General Assembly, in enacting the voter ID law and failing to take action to prevent long wait times to vote from recurring, intended to suppress (i.e., fence out), has suppressed, and will continue to suppress the vote of Democrats.
4. Whether the General Assembly, in enacting the voter ID law and failing to take action to prevent long wait times to vote from recurring, intended, at least in part, to suppress the number of votes cast by African Americans and Latinos in violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.
5. Whether the General Assembly, in enacting the voter ID law and failing to take action to reduce wait times to vote intended, at least in part, to suppress the number of votes cast by young voters in violation of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment.
Complaint filed on 6/11/2015. Motion for Stay Of Discovery and Motion To Quash filed 9/25/15. Order to Withdraw Motion To Quash filed 10/16/15. MOTION to Compel Discovery by Lee et al filed 10/19/15. Opinion and Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss filed 12/18/15. Trial held February 2016. Opinion and Order upholding Virginia voter ID law filed 5/19/16.
League of Women Voters v. NewbyCase Page - last updated on May 20, 2016 (3:16 PM)
Whether the EAC unlawfully permitted certain states to modify the national uniform mail-in voter registration form by requiring documentary proof of citizenship.
Complaint and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction filed 02/12/16. Answer filed 4/22/16.
Feldman v. ArizonaCase Page - last updated on May 23, 2016 (3:03 PM)
Whether Arizona's allegedly insufficient number of polling places disenfranchised voters in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, the First Amendment, and section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Complaint filed 4/15/16. Amended complaint filed 4/19/16.
Fish v. KobachCase Page - last updated on May 26, 2016 (2:58 PM)
Whether Kansas has violated the NVRA’s accessible registration system by requiring that Kansans who attempt to register to vote while applying for or renewing a driver’s license produce documents like a birth certificate or U.S. passport in order to become registered.
Complaint filed 2/18/16. Motion for preliminary injunction filed 2/26/16. Memorandum and Order regarding preliminary injunction filed 5/17/16.
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.