Last Updated: November 10, 2011 at 5:00 PM
Gusciora v. Christie
Case Information
Date Filed: October 19, 2004
State: New Jersey
Issue: Voting Technology
Current Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division (Case A-005608-10T3)
Issue:
Whether New Jersey's use of certain voting machines violates New Jersey constitutional and statutory law.
Status:
Notice of Appeal filed 7/20/11. Appellants' brief filed 10/12/11.
Superior Court, Law Division Documents
- Trial testimony of defendant's expert, Dr. Michael Shamos
(March 23, 2009) - Trial testimony of defendant's expert, Dr. Michael Shamos (March 24, 2009)
- Trial testimony of defendant's expert, Dr. Michael Shamos (March 25, 2009)
- Trial Court opinion (filed 2/1/2010)
Superior Court, Appellate Division Documents
- Appellants' brief (filed 10/12/2011)
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...