HTTP 404 Not Found
Bernie.php

OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

 

Hindel v. Husted

Case Information

Date Filed: December 7, 2015
State: Ohio
Issues: Absentee Ballots, Voting Technology
Current Court: Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Case 17-03207)

Issue:

Whether Ohio is violating the Americans with Disabilities Act by allegedly not providing equal opportunity for blind voters to vote absentee and access the Ohio Secretary of State's voter services website.

Status:

Complaint filed 12/7/15. Motion for preliminary injunction filed 12/7/15. Answer filed 2/5/16. Motion for judgment on the pleadings filed 2/5/16. Plaintiffs' response in opposition filed 2/29/16. Motion for permanent injunction filed 4/816. Defendant's memorandum in opposition to motion for permanent injunction filed 4/25/16. Opinion and order granting defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings filed 5/11/16. Motion for reconsideration filed 7/7/16. Joint motion for status conference filed 10/6/16. Motion for Permanent Injunction filed 11/16/16. Husted Response in Opposition to Motion for Permanent Injunction filed 12/7/16. Opinion and Order Granting in Part Plaintiffs' Motion for Permanent Injunction filed 2/1/17. Motion for Attorney Fees filed 2/24/17. Notice of Appeal filed 2/24/17. Appellants' Brief filed 4/12/17. Amicus brief of ACLU et al filed 4/17/17. Appellee's Brief filed 5/10/17.

U.S. District Court Documents

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Documents

Commentary

Edward B. Foley

The Electoral Fix We Really Need

Edward B. Foley

The Electoral College winner should be the majority choice in each state that counts towards that Electoral College victory.

more commentary...

In the News

Edward B. Foley

Gerrymandering Is Headed Back to the Supreme Court

Professor Edward Foley was requoted in Mother Jones about a gerrymandering case in Wisconsin on its way to the Supreme Court. Other legal actions on partisan gerrymandering in Maryland and in North Carolina may be bound for the Supreme Court as well.

While previous Supreme Court cases have noted that partisan gerrymanders are “incompatible with democratic principles,” The New York Times originally reported, the court has never officially struck a case down. While it remains unseen how the Supreme Court will rule in the upcoming cases, a 2004 ruling from a previous gerrymandering case could play a pivotal role in how the court stands in the future. 

“The ordered working of our Republic, and of the democratic process, depends on a sense of decorum and restraint in all branches of government, and in the citizenry itself,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in 2004. Kennedy’s statement is “the most important line” in the decision, Foley told The New York Times, adding,  “He’s going to look at what’s going on in North Carolina as the complete absence of that. I think that helps the plaintiffs in any of these cases.”


 

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

U.S. Supreme Court Affirms District Court: NC Redistricting Unconstitutional

In a 5-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the District Court, finding that North Carolina\'s Congressional redistricting plan violated the U.S. Constitution. The Court determined that racial considerations unlawfully predominated the designing of the contested districts. The case is Cooper v. Harris.

more info & analysis...