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

Of X-Rays, CT Scans, and Gerrymanders

Edward B. Foley

Progress in the detection of malignant redistricting.

more commentary...

In the News

Edward B. Foley

Ranked-choice voting: A better way or chaos?

Professor Edward Foley’s book, “Ballot Battles: The History of Disputed Elections in the United States” was quoted in The Ellsworth American, in an article about ranked-choice voting in Maine.

Plurality language was added to Maine’s Constitution in 1880 after none of the candidates for governor in the election of 1879 received a majority vote.

“After this ordeal, the state eliminated the requirement that a gubernatorial candidate win a majority in order to win the office outright; instead, a plurality would suffice,” Foley writes.
 

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

U.S. Supreme Court Grants Texas\' Request for Stay in Redistricting Case

In two 5-4 votes, the U.S. Supreme Court granted stays in a Texas redistricting case involving Congressional and state house questions, putting on hold the district court\'s orders for the Texas legislature to redraw certain district lines. The stays will be in place until the Supreme Court rules on Texas\' appeal, likely next year. The case is Perez v. Abbott.

more info & analysis...