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: Mike Pence to lead voter fraud probe

Professor Edward Foley was quoted in The Christian Science Monitor in an article about the investigation into voter fraud that will be led by Vice President Mike Pence. More than a dozen lawsuits nationwide regarding voting rights and access await federal court.

“Voting litigation is increasing, not decreasing,” Foley said. “The main impression … is that when a law looks like it’s engaging in outright disenfranchisement of a valid voter, even conservative judges have been stopping that. [But] the judiciary is more tolerant with state legislatures adjusting issues of convenience and accessibility, if the adjustment is not outright disenfranchisement.”

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...