OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

 

Banfield v. Cortes

Case Information

Date Filed / Ended: August 15, 2006 / April 4, 2008
State: Pennsylvania
Issue: Voting Technology
Courts that Heard this Case: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (Case No. 442 MD 2006); Pennsylvania Supreme Court (Case No. 70 MM 2007); Pennsylvania Supreme Court (Case No. 83 MAP 2013)

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. Opinion denying petitioners' motion for partial summary judgment issued 8/29/12. Status Conference scheduled for 1/29/13. Counts 1, 4, 5, and 6 dismissed on 1/29/13. Memorandum and opinion filed 10/1/13. Notice of Appeal filed 10/11/13. Notice of Judgment in favor of respondent filed 10/15/14. Appellant's Brief filed in Supreme Court on 1/6/14. Appellee's Brief filed 2/10/14. Appellant's Reply Brief filed 2/24/14. Pennsylvania Supreme Court oral argument held 9/10/14. Opinion affirming Commonwealth Court filed 2/18/15.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Documents

Commonwealth Court Documents

Related Links

Related News Articles

Commentary

Edward B. Foley

The Electoral Fix We Really Need

Edward B. Foley

The Electoral College winner should be the majority choice in each state that counts towards that Electoral College victory.

more commentary...

In the News

Edward B. Foley

Trump Calls for Voter Fraud Probe: A Look at Past Inquiries

Professor Edward Foley was quoted in Voice of America about President Donald Trump’s plans to launch a “major investigation” into voter fraud. Trump claims he lost the popular vote because as many as 5 million non-U.S. citizens may have voted illegally.

“As I understand the latest allegations, somewhere between 3 to 5 million improper ballots were cast this past November nationwide, which Trump claims accounts for why Hillary Clinton won the popular vote,” Foley said. “Even if there were 3 to 5 million invalid votes nationwide, we can’t jump to the conclusion that the election result was tainted, because we don’t know who they voted for.”

The odds of a non-U.S. citizen successfully casting a ballot are “extremely low, extraordinarily low,” according to Foley. Instances in which invalid ballots are cast or when voters’ names appear on multiple state voter rolls also don’t necessarily indicate voter fraud either, he added.

“Just because a ballot was cast that was invalid, which is a problem, doesn’t necessarily mean there was a conspiracy to commit voter fraud,” Foley said. “Fraud is a pejorative term that implies intentional deception and manipulation, as opposed to there being mistakes in voter registration lists.”
 


 

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

U.S. District Judge Rules that Ohio Voter Services Website Violates ADA

A U.S. District Judge issued an opinion finding that the Ohio Secretary of State\'s voter services website violates Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act because it is not accessible to visually impaired Ohio voters. Judge George C. Smith ordered Secretary of State John Husted to make the site more accessible by September 29, 2017. As discussed in the opinion, the information on the voter services site does not meet established standards of accessibility for visually impaired voters who use screen reading software. The case is Hindel v. Husted.

more info & analysis...