OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz



In re 2016 Primary Election

Case Information

Date Filed: March 15, 2016
State: Ohio
Issue: Polling Place Notices
Courts that Heard this Case: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Case 1:16-mc-00005-TSB); Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Case 16-03350, 16-03352, and 16-03357)


(1) Whether a federal court has jurisdiction to order state elections officials to extend polling hours or re-open polls with no complaint filed, no identified plaintiff, no federal cause of action or basis for federal jurisdiction identified, and no state action at issue.

(2) Whether a federal court may grant relief without identifying any state action that constituted a violation of law to be remedied.

(3) Whether a federal court may grant relief with no process preceding the decision, specifically, (a) no filed complaint or motion, (b) no advance notice to Defendant Ohio Secretary of State or affected County Boards of Elections; and (c) none of the prerequisites of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 satisfied, such as the notice under Rule 65(a), requirements to forgo notice under Rule 65(b)(1), or a stated basis for the lack of notice under Rule 65(b)(2).

(4) Whether a federal court may order polls to be kept open in an order issued after closing time was reached, in light of this Court's and the Supreme Court's repeated admonishments discouraging such last-minute orders, and in light of the impossibility of contacting hundreds of polling locations that were already closing before the order issued.


Order issued 3/15/16. Notices of Appeal filed 4/11/16. Order directing clerk to appoint counsel to defend District Court order filed 5/2/16. Appearance entered by attorney Rachel Bloomekatz to defend District Court order 5/11/16. Appellants' Brief filed 6/23/16. Appointed Counsel Brief filed 7/14/16. Opinion and Order Vacating Preliminary Injunction filed 9/6/16.

District Court Documents

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals



Edward B. Foley

A Special Master for the Cohen Case?

Edward B. Foley

There should be a strong presumption against special treatment just because the president is involved. 

more commentary...

In the News

Edward B. Foley

U.S. Supreme Court upholds Ohio voter purging process

Professor Edward Foley was quoted in The Blade about Ohio’s voter purge law, which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. 


“I don’t think there’s any real reason to believe that the drop-off is going to be significant,” Mr. Foley said. “The Ohio law that was upheld in this case never disenfranchised anybody.”



more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Supreme Court Upholds Most Texas Districts in Racial Gerrymandering Case

In a 5-4 decision that reversed the ruling of the District Court, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the drawing of most of the disputed Texas districts did not violate the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act. The case is Abbott v. Perez.

more info & analysis...