Last Updated: May 18, 2012 at 11:06 AM
Georgia State Conference of the NAACP v. Kemp
Case Information
Date Filed: June 6, 2011
State: Georgia
Issue: Ballot Access
Current Court: U.s. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Case 1:11-cv-01849)
Issue:
Whether Georgian Secretary of State Kemp has violated Section 7 of the National Voter Registration Act by neglecting to provide infovoter registration service to its public assistance clients.
Status:
Statement of Interest of US filed 10/5/11. Reply Brief in support of Motion to Dismiss filed 9/26/11.Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss filed 9/09/11. Motion to Dismiss filed 8/10/11. Complaint Filed 6/06/11.
District Court Documents
- Complaint
(filed 6/06/11)
- Order Reassigning the Case (filed 6/08/11)
- Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (filed 6/27/11)
- Motion for Oral Argument (filed 6/27/11)
- Amended Complaint (filed 7/13/11)
- Motion to Dismiss (filed 8/10/11)
- Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (filed 9/09/11)
- Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss (filed 9/26/11)
- Statement of Interest of US (filed 10/5/11)
- Joint Preliminary Report and Discovery Plan (filed 11/22/11)
- Defendant's Initital Disclosures (filed 12/01/11)
- Order on Motion to Dismiss (filed 1/30/12)
- Answer to Amended Complaint (filed 2/13/12)
- Settlement Agreement (filed 4/18/12)
- Order Accepting Settlement Agreement (filed 4/26/12)
PDF files in this site require
Commentary
Provisional Ballots, Consent Decrees, and the Balance Between the Federal and State Governments
Owen Wolfe
A recent mandamus action filed by the Ohio Senate President and House Speaker Pro Tempore to require the Ohio Secretary of State to rescind directives issued in response to a consent decree issued in a federal case dealing with counting provisional ballots raises questions about the mechanics of state election law, the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the relationship between federal and state courts, the law of consent decrees, and more. I have attempted in this article to grapple with these issues in a fair and unbiased manner. Given the complexity of this problem, however, these matters are open to a variety of interpretations and this is just one approach. I hope, however, that this article can provide a useful starting point for a discussion about the future of provisional voting in Ohio and in the nation at large.
This paper is a first look by a student member of the Election Law @ Moritz team and reflects one possible perspective on the issue. Stay tuned, as more analysis from the team will follow as the litigation develops. Owen Wolfe is affiliated with the Ohio Democratic Party and the Obama ’12 campaign, but is not in any way associated with any litigation team working on this case. EL@M has posted the document because we believe it has public value and adds to the discourse on this topic.
more commentary...