1. Help
2. Campus map
3. Find people
4. Webmail
5. Search Ohio State

• About
  EL@M
  • About Us
  • Experts by Topic
• Faculty
  • Edward B. "Ned" Foley
  • Daniel P. Tokaji
  • Terri L. Enns
  • Steven F. Huefner
  • Donald B. Tobin
  • EL@M Fellows
  • EL@M Staff
  • Experts by Topic
• Election Law
  Litigation
  • Major Pending Cases
  • Archived Cases
• Current
  Features
  • News Wire
  • Key Questions for Key States
  • Compare State Election Laws
  • State-Specific Election Laws
  • State-by-State Coverage
  • Topic-by-Topic Coverage
  • Voting Machine Issues Nationwide (2008)
  • From Registration to Recounts (Book)
  • Major Election Law Reports
  • Equal Vote
  • Free & Fair
  • Featured Comments
• Archived
  Features
  • 50 Questions for 5 Key States
  • 2008 Pre-Election Litigation Risk Assessment
  • 2008 Primary Post-Election Timeline
  • Voter ID Litigation Nationwide
  • 2006 Election Overview
  • 2006 Recount Roundup
  • 2006 Ohio Primary Problems
  • 2006 Voting Technology Nationwide
  • 2006 Election Podcasts
  • Electronic Roundtable '06
  • Ohio Voter Registration Regulations
  • e-Book
  • Past Case Decisions
  • 2005 Redistricting Developments
• Biweekly
  Update
  • Subscribe
• Related
  Links
• McCain v.
  Obama
• Free & Fair
  (Foley)
• A Joint Project with
  the Moritz Law Library
• Media

Banfield v. Cortes

(page last updated October 27, 2008 at 3:09 PM)

Case Information

All Courts: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (Case No. 442 MD 2006); Pennsylvania Supreme Court (Case No. 70 MM 2007)
Topic(s): Voting Technology
State: Pennsylvania
Date Filed: August 15, 2006

Issue:

Whether the Pennsylvania Secretary of State properly certified electronic voting equipment used throughout the state.

Status:

Opinion entered 4/12/07 allowing the continuation of the litigation. Appeal to Pennsylvania Supreme Court filed on 5/10/07.  The parties agreed to stay of proceedings in the Commonwealth Court, pending resolution of the Supreme Court appeal.  Plaintiff unsuccesfully attempted to dissolve this voluntary stay in 2008, with the Commonwealth Court ultimately denying the plaintiff's motion on 4/4/08.  The case remains effectively stayed pending the outcome of the Supreme Court appeal.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Documents

• Docket
• Petition for Permission to Appeal (filed 5/10/07) [Not available]
• Brief in Opposition (filed 5/24/07) [Not available]

Commonwealth Court Documents

• Docket
• 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 Oppostion 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)

Related Links

• Counties with Electronic Voting Machines Affected by Lawsuit, VoterAction.org

Related News Articles

• PA Court Issues Ruling in Voting Machine Case (April 13, 2007)
• Court Recognizes Pennsylvania Voters’ Right to Reliable, Secure Voting Machines, Drinker Biddle Press Release, April 12, 2007

Election Law @ Moritz | Professor Edward B. Foley, Director | 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, but individuals affiliated with the program may from time to time in their own personal capacity engage in pro bono representation of clients other than partisan candidates or organizations.

The Ohio State University | Michael E. Moritz College of Law | 55 West 12th Avenue | Columbus, OH 43210-1391 | (614) 292-2631