HTTP 404 Not Found

OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

 

Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute and NEOCH v. Husted

Case Information

Date Filed: April 6, 2016
State: Ohio
Issues: Voter Eligibility, Voter Supression
Current Court: U.S. Supreme Court (Case 16-980)

Issue:

Whether the removal of eligible voters from Ohio’s voter-registration rolls, as a result of those voters’ decisions not to participate in recent elections, violates the roll-maintenance provisions of the National Voter Registration Act and has caused eligible Ohio citizens to be deprived of the right to vote.

Status:

Complaint  04/06/2016. Answer filed 4/28/16. Amended complaint filed 5/17/16. Defendant's merit brief filed 5/24/16. Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and motion for permanent or temporary injunction filed 5/24/16. Order denying Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and permanent or temporary injunction, and entering judgment for defendant filed 6/29/16. Appellants' brief at 6th Circuit filed 7/13/16. Appellee's brief filed 7/20/16. 6th Circuit Opinion Reversing District Court filed 9/23/16. District Court Opinion and Order implementing remedies consistent with Sixth Circuit Opinion filed 10/19/16. Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed 2/13/17. Respondents' Brief filed 3/31/17. Petitioners' Reply filed 4/17/17. District Court Order Granting Joint Motion for Further Relief filed 4/24/17. Order Granting Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed 5/30/17.

Disclosure: EL@M Senior Fellow Daniel Tokaji is involved in this case as one of the cooperating attorneys for the ACLU of  Ohio. No EL@M member who participates in any lawsuit covered on the EL@M website is involved in generating the website's information or analysis on that lawsuit.

District Court Documents

6th Circuit Court of Appeals Documents

 

U.S. Supreme Court Documents

 

In the News

Edward B. Foley

Gerrymandering Is Headed Back to the Supreme Court

Professor Edward Foley was requoted in Mother Jones about a gerrymandering case in Wisconsin on its way to the Supreme Court. Other legal actions on partisan gerrymandering in Maryland and in North Carolina may be bound for the Supreme Court as well.

While previous Supreme Court cases have noted that partisan gerrymanders are “incompatible with democratic principles,” The New York Times originally reported, the court has never officially struck a case down. While it remains unseen how the Supreme Court will rule in the upcoming cases, a 2004 ruling from a previous gerrymandering case could play a pivotal role in how the court stands in the future. 

“The ordered working of our Republic, and of the democratic process, depends on a sense of decorum and restraint in all branches of government, and in the citizenry itself,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in 2004. Kennedy’s statement is “the most important line” in the decision, Foley told The New York Times, adding,  “He’s going to look at what’s going on in North Carolina as the complete absence of that. I think that helps the plaintiffs in any of these cases.”


 

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Wisconsin Gerrymandering Case

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider a gerrymandering case involving Wisconsin state legislative districts. The court also granted a request by the state to temporarily block the lower court\'s decision until the appeal is resolved. The case is Gill v. Whitford.

more info & analysis...