1. Help
2. Campus map
3. Find people
4. Webmail
5. Search Ohio State

• About
  EL@M
  • About Us
  • Experts by Topic
• Faculty
  • Edward B. "Ned" Foley
  • Daniel P. Tokaji
  • Terri L. Enns
  • Steven F. Huefner
  • Donald B. Tobin
  • EL@M Fellows
  • EL@M Staff
  • Experts by Topic
• Election Law
  Litigation
  • Major Pending Cases
  • Archived Cases
• Current
  Features
  • News Wire
  • Key Questions for Key States
  • Compare State Election Laws
  • State-Specific Election Laws
  • State-by-State Coverage
  • Topic-by-Topic Coverage
  • Voting Machine Issues Nationwide (2008)
  • From Registration to Recounts (Book)
  • Major Election Law Reports
  • Equal Vote
  • Free & Fair
  • Featured Comments
• Archived
  Features
  • 50 Questions for 5 Key States
  • 2008 Pre-Election Litigation Risk Assessment
  • 2008 Primary Post-Election Timeline
  • Voter ID Litigation Nationwide
  • 2006 Election Overview
  • 2006 Recount Roundup
  • 2006 Ohio Primary Problems
  • 2006 Voting Technology Nationwide
  • 2006 Election Podcasts
  • Electronic Roundtable '06
  • Ohio Voter Registration Regulations
  • e-Book
  • Past Case Decisions
  • 2005 Redistricting Developments
• Biweekly
  Update
  • Subscribe
• Related
  Links
• McCain v.
  Obama
• Free & Fair
  (Foley)
• A Joint Project with
  the Moritz Law Library
• Media

—— Media Hotline (614) 247-8880 ——

Information and Analysis

Decision in League of Women Voters v. Rokita

September 17 (1:54 PM)

The Indiana Court of Appeals has issued an opinion (9/17) reversing the trial court's dismissal of the League of Women Voters amended complaint for declaratory judgment, which sought a judicial declaration that Indiana's Voter ID law violates the Indiana constitution.  The court of appeals further remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to enter an order declaring the Voter ID law void. [See EL@M case page for additional information, along with local reactions from the Indianapolis Star.]

News on the Oral Argument for Citizens United

September 4 (3:25 PM)

The oral arguments for the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission are set for Wednesday, September 9, and information on the hearing has been leaked thanks to the SCOTUS blog.  This will be the first hearing for Justice Sotomayor, with plans to provide the audio of the argument shortly after the hearing.  For more discussion on this case, see Edward B. Foley's comment "Citizens United, Stare Decisis and Democracy."

MN Supreme Court Rules in Coleman v. Franken

June 30 (2:20 PM)

The Minnesota Supreme Court has issued an opinion (6/30) affirming the decision of the trial court that Al Franken received the highest number of votes legally cast and is entitled to receive the certificate of election as U.S. Senator from the state of Minnesota [See EL@M case page for additional information].

Supreme Court Issues Opinion in Northwest Austin Case

June 23 (8:59 AM)

On Monday (6/22), the Supreme Court issued an opinion in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Gonzales, reversing and remanding the case to the District Court [See EL@M case page for additional information].

DOJ Issues a Finding on Georgia Program

June 3 (10:26 AM)

On Monday (6/1), the Department of Justice rejected Georgia's voter verification program, which included the use of Social Security numbers and driver's license data to determine citizenship (See the AP story from the Atlanta Journal Constitution for more details).  The Georgia Secretary of State has also issued a press release commenting on the decision.

New Lawsuit in Minnesota

May 29 (12:39 PM)

Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie is being sued over the voter registration records in the state.  The petitioners in the suit, the group Minnesota Majority, several Republican legislators and others are alleging voting discrepancies in the 2008 election.  The petition, filed with the Minnesota Supreme Court on Thursday (5/28), claims that updates to Minnesota's registration system are insufficient and that the 2008 vote totals exceed voters in the system by 406,000.  [See EL@M case page for additional information].

Coleman Files Reply Brief

May 15 (3:21 PM)

The Appellants have now filed the Reply Brief (5/15) with the Minnesota Supreme Court.

More Headlines

• Franken Files Brief in Recount Case - May 12 (12:00 AM)
• Coleman Files Brief in Minnesota Recount Case - April 30 (4:22 PM)
• Tedisco Concedes in NY 20 - April 27 (10:47 AM)
• Minnesota Recount - Order Setting Date for Arguments - April 24 (10:57 AM)
• Appeal Filed in Minnesota Recount - April 21 (12:00 AM)
• NY-20 update - Tedisco challenges Gillibrand's ballot - April 16 (9:47 AM)
• NY-20 congressional race - vote-counting continues as do court battles - April 14 (3:26 PM)
• Minnesota contest - possible next steps - April 14 (3:06 PM)
• 3-Judge Court Issues Final Ruling for Franken - April 13 (8:20 PM)
• NY-20 congressional race: absentee ballots to be counted tomorrow - April 7 (4:14 PM)
• MN: Additional Absentees Extend Franken's Lead - April 7 (1:16 PM)
• Vote-counting today in Minnesota contest courtroom - April 7 (10:54 AM)
• NY-20 congressional race tied for now - April 6 (2:05 PM)
• Minnesota U.S. Senate contest - Summarizing video - April 6 (12:34 PM)
• Minnesota Senate race - analyses and comments - April 1 (11:17 AM)
• New York special congressional election candidates separated by 65 votes - April 1 (10:56 AM)
• New orders in the Minnesota U.S. Senate contest - March 31 (5:46 PM)
• No news yet in the Minnesota Senate contest - March 20 (11:51 AM)
• Final arguments concluded in the Minnesota U.S. Senate contest - March 13 (1:31 PM)
• Minnesota Senate contest - Franken to provisionally rest case tomorrow - March 11 (5:22 PM)
• What will happen to the 89 ballots whose envelopes contained valid registration forms? - March 9 (5:35 PM)
• Minnesota Senate contest - 80 registration forms found out of 1500 secrecy envelopes - March 9 (12:58 PM)
• Minnesota contest court hears arguments over Franken's motion to dismiss - March 6 (6:47 PM)

Archives

2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004

Election Law @ Moritz | Professor Edward B. Foley, Director | electionlaw@osu.edu
Please note: Election Law @ Moritz is nonpartisan and does not endorse, support, or oppose any candidate, campaign, or party. Opinions expressed by individuals associated with Election Law @ Moritz, either on this web site or in connection with conferences or other activities undertaken by the program, represent solely the views of the individuals offering the opinions and not the program itself. Election Law @ Moritz institutionally does not represent any clients or participate in any litigation, but individuals affiliated with the program may from time to time in their own personal capacity engage in pro bono representation of clients other than partisan candidates or organizations.

The Ohio State University | Michael E. Moritz College of Law | 55 West 12th Avenue | Columbus, OH 43210-1391 | (614) 292-2631