Moritz College of Law | Page not found
HTTP 404 Not Found

OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

 

Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama

Case Information

Date Filed: August 10, 2012
State: Alabama
Issue: Redistricting
Current Court: United States District Court Middle District of Alabama (Case 12-CV-691)

Issue:

Whether Alabama’s effort to redraw the lines of each majority-black district to have the same black population as it would have using 2010 census data as applied to the former district lines, when combined with the state's new goal of significantly reducing population deviation among districts, amounted to an unconstitutional racial quota and racial gerrymandering that is subject to strict scrutiny and that was not justified by the putative interest of complying with the non-retrogression aspect of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act; and whether these plaintiffs have standing to bring such a constitutional claim.

Status:

Appellees' Motion to Dismiss or Affirm filed in U.S. Supreme Court 4/21/14. Appellants' Reply filed 5/5/14. Appellees' Brief filed 10/9/14. Appellants' Reply Brief filed 10/28/14. U.S. Supreme Court Opinion filed 3/25/15. Judgment filed 4/27/15. District Court order denying summary judgment filed 4/28/15. Plaintiffs' post-remand brief filed 6/12/15. Defendants' post-remand brief filed 7/24/15. Order for plaintiffs to file new statewide redistricting plan 8/28/15. Defendants' Notice of Supplemental Authority (U.S. Supreme Court case of Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission) filed 4/22/16.

U.S. Supreme Court case decided with Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, No. 13-1138.

Supreme Court Documents

 

District Court Documents

Commentary

Daniel P. Tokaji

Is Ted Cruz Eligible to Be President? Letís Find Out

Daniel P. Tokaji

Donald Trump has revived the question whether Senator Ted Cruz is ineligible to serve as President due to his birth in Canada. The issue cries out for judicial resolution, but there are constitutional and prudential obstacles to a federal court deciding it.  This comment argues that the most promising avenue  is a state court lawsuit challenging Senator Cruz’s eligibility and seeking his removal from the primary ballot. There’s at least one state – Pennsylvania – where the deadline for filing hasn’t yet expired, but if skeptics of Cruz’s eligibility want to sue there they must act quickly, no later than Tuesday. Litigating the case through state court would tee up the issue for Supreme Court review, which would be helpful in resolving the recurrent question of what it means to be a “natural born Citizen."

more commentary...

In the News

Daniel P. Tokaji

An Obscure Ohio State Law Could Shake Up the Republican Convention

Professor Dan Tokaji was quoted in an ABC News article about the Republican Convention:

“It’s entirely imaginable that these kind of controversies will emerge if Donald Trump goes into Cleveland without 1,237,” said Dan Tokaji, an expert in election law at the Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University, referring the number of delegates needed to clinch the nomination. “There’s going to be a furious jockeying for these delegates.”

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

U.S. District Judge Rules for Plaintiffs in Ohio Early Voting Case

Today, U.S. District Judge Michael Watson issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in an Ohio early voting case, determining that Ohio\'s reduction of in-person early voting days violated Equal Protection and the Voting Rights Act. Judge Watson dismissed additional claims brought by the plaintiffs. A bench trial was held in late 2015. The case is Ohio Democratic Party v. Husted.

more info & analysis...