
Further complicating matters is the mandamus action recently filed in the Ohio Supreme Court by two Ohio Republican legislators. The relators seek an order for the Secretary of State to rescind directives issued pursuant to a consent decree in the federal NEOCH v. Brunner case. The directives permit provisional ballots to be counted even if cast in the wrong precinct or if signature requirements are not fully complied with because of poll worker error.
In another provisional ballot case, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Hamilton County Board of Elections request for a stay of the District Court’s decision that provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct, again due to poll-worker error, should be counted. This case relies on a federal equal protection claim, as some wrong-precinct ballots, cast wrongly due to poll-worker error, were counted.
Owen Wolfe
A recent mandamus action filed by the Ohio Senate President and House Speaker Pro Tempore to require the Ohio Secretary of State to rescind directives issued in response to a consent decree issued in a federal case dealing with counting provisional ballots raises questions about the mechanics of state election law, the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the relationship between federal and state courts, the law of consent decrees, and more. I have attempted in this article to grapple with these issues in a fair and unbiased manner. Given the complexity of this problem, however, these matters are open to a variety of interpretations and this is just one approach. I hope, however, that this article can provide a useful starting point for a discussion about the future of provisional voting in Ohio and in the nation at large.
This paper is a first look by a student member of the Election Law @ Moritz team and reflects one possible perspective on the issue. Stay tuned, as more analysis from the team will follow as the litigation develops. Owen Wolfe is affiliated with the Ohio Democratic Party and the Obama ’12 campaign, but is not in any way associated with any litigation team working on this case. EL@M has posted the document because we believe it has public value and adds to the discourse on this topic.
The latest election law news from across the country...last updated May 22 (5:13 PM).
Professor Steven Davidoff, writing as the Deal Professor for The New York Times DealBook, wrote a column about Google's new share class. The tech company created a nonvoting share class in order to give its founders tighter control of the company. They did this, they said, in order to "focus on the long term."
Davidoff said this could create a pattern: "In the meantime, one thing is certain. The clear trend in technology companies is to deny shareholders this choice and a real vote. In other words, expect more Google followers."
State: Wisconsin
Issue: 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.