OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Commentary

Is Intent to Discriminate Required in Bush v. Gore Cases?

In this student paper, “Is Intent to Discriminate Required in Bush v. Gore Cases?” Owen Wolfe explores the relationship between Snowden v. Hughes’ requirement of intentional or facial discrimination and the apparent absence of such a requirement in Bush v. Gore. In what has become a particularly timely analysis, Wolfe situates his discussion in the context of the Hunter v. Hamilton County Board of Elections case, currently before the U.S. Supreme Court in an emergency stay application to Justice Kagan. (This stay application raises precisely the same issue as discussed in Wolfe’s paper.) After describing the two critical Supreme Court cases, Wolfe looks at lower court opinions, with particular focus on three 6th Circuit voting rights opinions and Minnesota’s Coleman v. Franken dispute. He wraps up with a look at arguments for and against the continued application of the intent requirement.

This student paper was written as coursework for a seminar on Disputed Elections. EL@M has posted it because we believe it has public value and adds to the discourse on this topic. It should be noted that the student has done prior work for attorneys representing one of the intervenors in the Hunter case as well as worked as a summer intern for the Ohio Democratic Party. However, this paper was prepared solely as part of course requirements. It represents the views of the student, not of the EL@M project or the individuals making up the project, and is posted solely to provide access to its analysis to the public.

Commentary

Daniel P. Tokaji

What's the Matter with Kobach?

Daniel P. Tokaji

By "Kobach," I mean the Kobach v. EAC case in which the Tenth Circuit heard oral argument Monday – rather than its lead plaintiff, Kansas’ controversial Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who argued the position of his state and the State of Arizona. This post discusses what’s at issue in the case, where the district court went wrong, and what the Tenth Circuit should do.

more commentary...

In the News

Daniel P. Tokaji

Ohio treasurer receives OK to host town halls

Professor Daniel Tokaji was quoted in an article from the Associated Press about an attorney general opinion that allows the Ohio treasurer to conduct telephone town halls using public money. The opinion will likely have broad ramifications for the upcoming elections, Tokaji said.

“As a practical matter, while that legal advice is certainly right, very serious concerns can arise about whether these are really intended to inform Ohio constituents about the operations of his office or if they’re campaign events,” he said.

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Judge Denies Motion for Preliminary Injunction in NC Case

U.S. District Judge Thomas D. Schroeder denied the motion for a preliminary injunction sought by the plaintiffs in a case challenging a new North Carolina voting law as violating the Voting Rights Act and the federal Constitution. Judge Schroeder also denied the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. The case is North Carolina NAACP v. McCrory.

more info & analysis...