Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Share

Last Updated: February 7, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Banfield v. Cortes

Case Information

Date Filed: August 15, 2006
State: Pennsylvania
Issue: Voting Technology
Current Court: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (Case No. 442 MD 2006)

Issue:

Whether Pennsylvania’s use of DREs (direct recording electronic voting machines) violates Pennsylvania or federal law; whether the Secretary of the Commonwealth is required to re-examine the electronic voting system at request of electors.

Status:

Motions for Summary Judgment filed 8/8/11 by both Petitioner and Respondent.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Documents

Petition for Permission to Appeal (filed 5/10/07) [Not available]
Brief in Opposition (filed 5/24/07) [Not available]
Order Denying Permission to Appeal (filed 12/16/07)

Commonwealth Court Documents

Petition for Review (filed 8/15/06)
- Exhibits
Opinion (entered 4/12/07)
Application for Stay and Supersedeas of Proceedings (filed 4/20/07)
Application to Amend the 4/12/07 Order to Allow Interlocutory Appeal by Respondent (filed 4/20/07)
Petitioners' Opposition to Respondents' Application for Relief (filed 4/27/07)
Order Granting Application to Amend (entered 4/30/07)
Application for Stay of proceedings pending appeal of this Courts 4/12/2007 Order (filed 5/8/07)
Application for Relief from Paragraph 4 of this Court's April 30, 2007 Order ( filed 5/10/07)
Order Granting Application for Stay (entered 5/11/07)
Motion to Dissolve Voluntary Stay of Proceedings and for an Expedited Hearing and Memorandum of Law (filed 1/25/08)
Petition for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum of Law (filed 1/25/08)
Answer to Application for Relief (filed 1/30/08)
Memorandum of Law Filed in Opposition to Petitioners' Motion to Dissolve Stay of Proceedings (1/30/08)
Petitioner's Reply Brief Filed in further support of their motion to dissolve the stay of proceedings (1/31/08)
Application to Strike and Memorandum in Support (2/6/08)
Motion for Pre-hearing summary denial of preliminary injunction and Memorandum in Support (2/6/08)
Answer to Petition for Preliminary Injunction (2/6/08)
Order Regarding Petition for Preliminary Injunction Other Disposition (2/8/08)
Motion to Dissolve Voluntary Stay of Proceedings and to set a Discovery and Trial Schedule (2/22/08)
Memorandum of Law in opposition to Petitioners' Motion to Dissolve Stay of Proceedings (3/7/08)
Answer to Petitioners' Motion to Dissolve Stay of Proceedings (3/7/08)
Argument Scheduled: 4/1/08 (3/10/08)
Petitioner's Reply Brief (filed 3/14/08)
Order Denying Application for Relief: The motion to dissolve voluntary stay is DENIED (entered 4/4/08)
Answer and New Matter (filed 1/15/09)
Answer to New Matter (filed 2/25/09)
Application for Relief (filed 4/8/09)
Order granting Application for Relief (filed 4/13/09)
Petitioners' Motion for Permanent Judge (filed 10/02/09)
PA's Memorandum in Support of Motion to Quash Subpoena and for Protective Order (filed 10/2/09)
Petitioners' Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Quash (filed 10/2/09)
Answer to Motion to Quash (filed 11/20/09)
Petitioner's Brief (filed 11/30/09)
Order Granting Request to Intervene (entered 12/15/09)
Notice of Appeal to PA Supreme Court (filed 12/28/09)
Second Amended Pre-Trial Order (filed 5/11/10)
Third Amended Pre-Trial Order (filed 5/27/10)
Petitioner's Brief Filed (filed 7/15/11)
Motion to Compel Production of Documents (filed 7/28/11)
Motions for Summary Judgment for both Petitioners and Respondents (filed 8/8/11)
Argument and Briefing Schedule (entered 8/17/11)
Petitioners' Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment Motion (filed 9/15/11)
Notice of Argument (filed 10/12/11)
Respondent's Memorandum in Opposition to Petitioner's Summary Judgment Motion (filed 10/14/11)
Petitioner's Reply to Respondent's Memorandum (filed 11/2/11)

Commentary

A Poster Child for Dysfunctional Districting

Daniel P. Tokaji

Fifty years ago next month, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Baker v. Carr (1962), inaugurating the “reapportionment revolution” which led to the redrawing of legislative districts across the country. This milestone provides the opportunity to reflect not only on what has been accomplished, but also on what still needs to be done.

more commentary...

In the News

This week: Bama voting rights case in DC courtroom on Thursday

Professor Daniel Tokaji, a senior fellow at Election Law @ Moritz, was quoted by The Birmingham News in an article about a local county's crusade to end 47 years of federal government oversight of its election returns.

Shelby County is hoping a federal appeals court will agree that the county no longer needs the U.S. Justice Department to approve changes in the ways elections are conducted because the area has progressed from its discriminatory past. It is unclear whether the case would be the vehicle with which justices of the U.S. Supreme Court would review the constitutionality of Section 5.

"I am reasonably confident they're going to take up the question of Section 5 constitutionality within the next few years," Tokaji said. "It could be Shelby County, it could be South Carolina, or some other."

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Federal Court Finds Equal Protection Violation

In the Hunter case, involving provisional ballots in a local Ohio election from 2010, the federal district court has ordered that ballots must be counted if they are otherwise eligible if they were miscast because of poll worker error.

more info & analysis...

Major Pending Cases

more litigation...

Election Law @ Moritz | The Ohio State University Michael E. Moritz College of Law | 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. Individuals affiliated with the program may in their own personal capacity participate in campaign or election activity, or engage in pro bono representation of clients other than partisan candidates or organizations.

PDF files in this site require Adobe Reader to view (link opens in NEW window). If you have trouble accessing this page or need to request an alternate format, please email the Moritz Law Webmaster.

OSU Navigation Bar