OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Information & Analysis

Coleman seeks temporary injunction against commingling the 933

The Coleman v. Franken contest saw a new development today in Coleman's approach.  The Coleman campaign moved to stop redaction of tracking numbers on the 933 initially rejected absentee ballots that were counted in the state canvass after a second review by the counties.  State officials were nearly half finished with the redaction, however, when the filing was made.  See the motion here and memorandum of support here.  Coleman and Franken stipulated on Feb. 3 that these ballots were properly and lawfully included in the canvass and contestant Coleman agreed to dismiss all claims related to the 933.  This was 10 days before prior to the court's ruling last Friday which appears to require the exclusion of other absentee ballots that are similarly situated to some of the 933.  Coleman's side now says that some illegal ballots are being included while other illegal ballots are being excluded and says this is an Equal Protection violation.  The Franken campaign believes the court has disposed of such a claim already but, on Feb. 18, asked the court to clearly articulate its position on Coleman's Equal Protection claim.  After today's move by Coleman, Franken's side is suggesting "unspecified sanctions" against Coleman's legal team.  See the Star Tribune coverage here and MinnPost.com coverage hereUpdated 6:55 PM EST: Franken has filed a memo opposing the temporary injunction and, in it, requests that the court establish a hearing and briefing schedule for the Franken team to move for Rule 11 sanctions against Coleman's lawyers.  Franken also filed a new memo today on the requirements for offers of proof made by the Coleman team to preserve issues for appeal.

Commentary

Donald B. Tobin

FAQ on social welfare organizations

Donald B. Tobin

The Frank E. and Virginia H. Bazler Designated Professor in Business Law and a senior fellow at Election Law @ Moritz explains the nuances of social welfare organizations and federal regulations related to them.

more commentary...

In the News

Donald B. Tobin

How Did The IRS Get The Job Of Vetting Political Activity?

Professor Donald Tobin was interviewed by the Boston NPR station on its show Here & Now about the Internal Revenue Service's investigation into groups classified as social welfare organizations (marked by the 501(c)(4) tax classification). The IRS was in search of groups that are not focusing primarly on the social welfare of the country, but have a strong political advocacy facet. Political advocacy groups might want to be classified as 501(c)(4) organizations because under that classification they do not have to disclose their donors.

"The key is if you going to be engaged in candidate-type advocacy, and if you're going to intervene in elections and engage in election advocacy, we want disclosure of who your donors are," Tobin said.

“What groups are trying to do here is avoid having to disclose,” Tobin continued. “By earning the classification of social welfare, they’re avoiding the campaign disclosure that’s required for political organizations. So that’s really the underpinning of why we have this mess of the IRS having to get in and investigate and figure out whether an organization is political or not.”

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Ohio House Committee Recommends Upholding Landis' Election Victory

Yesterday, an Ohio House of Representatives committee recommended 5-4 that the Ohio House uphold the election victory of Republican State Representative Al Landis over Democratic challenger Josh O'Farrell. In February, the Ohio Supreme Court sent the O'Farrell v. Landis record to the House for consideration. According to an article in the Canton Repository, committee chairman and State Representative Matt Huffman said he expects a vote by the full House later this month.

more info & analysis...