Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Share

Last Updated: May 8, 2013 at 12:58 PM

Banfield v. Aichele

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. 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.

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)
Douglas W. Jones Affidavit (filed 10/15/09)
Douglas W. Jones Curriculum Vitae (filed 10/15/09)
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)
Opinion Denying Partial Summary Judgment Motion (filed 8/29/12)
Joint Status Report Regarding Re-examination of DRE voting system (filed 9/13/12)
Application of Aichele for Status Conference (filed 1/4/13)
Answer to Application for Relief (filed 1/14/13)
Further Proceedings Assigned to Judge Leadbetter (filed 1/14/13)
Order Filed Dismissing Counts 1, 4, 5 and 6 (filed 1/29/13)
Answer to Motion to Compel (filed 2/5/13)
Order Granting Motion to Compel in Part (filed 2/13/13)
Motion to Compel Production of Documents by Respondent (filed 3/15/13)
Respondent's Brief in Support of Application for Relief (filed 3/21/13)
Aichele's Response to Motion to Compel (filed 4/1/13)
Application for Relief (filed 4/8/13)
Reply in Support of Motion to Compel (filed 4/10/13)
Petitioner's Opposition to Respondent's Application for Relief (filed 4/11/2013)
Intervenor's Brief (filed 4/19/13)
Order Denying Application for Relief (filed 4/19/13)
Order Granting In Camera Review (filed 4/19/13)
Respondent's Brief in Support of Summary Relief (filed 4/19/13)
Notice of Petitioner's Violation of Second Protective Order (filed 5/2/13)

Commentary

FAQ on social welfare organizations

Donald B. Tobin

The Frank E. and Virginia H. Bazler Designated Professor in Business Law and a senior fellow at Election Law @ Moritz explains the nuances of social welfare organizations and federal regulations related to them.

more commentary...

In the News

How Did The IRS Get The Job Of Vetting Political Activity?

Professor Donald Tobin was interviewed by the Boston NPR station on its show Here & Now about the Internal Revenue Service's investigation into groups classified as social welfare organizations (marked by the 501(c)(4) tax classification). The IRS was in search of groups that are not focusing primarly on the social welfare of the country, but have a strong political advocacy facet. Political advocacy groups might want to be classified as 501(c)(4) organizations because under that classification they do not have to disclose their donors.

"The key is if you going to be engaged in candidate-type advocacy, and if you're going to intervene in elections and engage in election advocacy, we want disclosure of who your donors are," Tobin said.

“What groups are trying to do here is avoid having to disclose,” Tobin continued. “By earning the classification of social welfare, they’re avoiding the campaign disclosure that’s required for political organizations. So that’s really the underpinning of why we have this mess of the IRS having to get in and investigate and figure out whether an organization is political or not.”

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Ohio House Committee Recommends Upholding Landis' Election Victory

Yesterday, an Ohio House of Representatives committee recommended 5-4 that the Ohio House uphold the election victory of Republican State Representative Al Landis over Democratic challenger Josh O'Farrell. In February, the Ohio Supreme Court sent the O'Farrell v. Landis record to the House for consideration. According to an article in the Canton Repository, committee chairman and State Representative Matt Huffman said he expects a vote by the full House later this month.

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