OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Information & Analysis

Minnesota contest court hears arguments over Franken's motion to dismiss

The contest court today heard arguments from Coleman and Franken over Coleman's motion to invalidate Rule 9 from the recount and Franken's motion to dismiss.  Fanken's attorney Marc Elias recited many of the details from the Franken motion in alleging that Coleman has not met its burden of submitting the evidence required for the court to find that rejected ballots were legally cast.  Coleman attorney James Langdon replied more generally by saying that he believed the Coleman team had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Coleman's claims are valid.  Langdon mentioned that they await the court's decision on Coleman's motion to apply the Feb. 13 order to all absentee ballots.  The judges did not ask many questions but Judge Reilly did say that she thought the ballots had been looked at three times now suggesting that she might have reservations about accepting Langdon's argument that the counting standard was unequally applied such that an equal protection violation exists.  Judge Marben asked Langdon if he accepted the numbers put forth in Franken's motion, which says the remaining ballots at issue number only 1400+ and that, of those, Coleman has put forth the necessary pieces of evidence for only a very small number of ballots to be considered by the court for inclusion.  Langdon did not accept the Franken numbers and suggested there are about 1725 ballots still in the "universe" for consideration by this court. 

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 are 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...