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

Edward B. Foley

Of Bouncing Balls and a Big Blue Shift

Edward B. Foley

It is a fortuitous coincidence that the University of Virginia’s Journal of Law & Politics has just published a piece of mine that shows the relevance of the current vote-counting process in Virginia’s Attorney General election to what might happen if the 2016 presidential election turns on a similar vote-counting process in Virginia. 

Read full post here.

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

U.S. Supreme Court strikes down aggregate campaign contribution cap

The U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion today in McCutcheon v. FEC, striking down aggregate limits on political campaign contributions but leaving in place limits on contributions to individual candidates.

more info & analysis...