Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Share

Last Updated: December 27, 2010 at 9:12 AM

In re Petition Regarding 2010 Gubernatorial Election

Case Information

Date Filed: November 17, 2010
State: Minnesota
Issues: Election 2010, Recount Resources
Courts that Heard this Case: Supreme Court of Minnesota (Case A102022)

Issue:

Whether the Supreme Court of Minnesota should address questions regarding the 2010 gubernatorial election.

Status:

Petition filed 11/17/10. Order denying peition, with opinion to follow 11/22/10.

Supreme Court Documents

Petition to Correct Errors and Omissions Regarding Determination of Proper Number of Ballots Counted (filed 11/17/10)
Order (entered 11/18/10)
Response of Ramsey County to Petition to Correct Errors and Omissions Regarding Proper Number of Ballots Counted (filed 11/19/10)
Response of Anoka County to Petition to Correct Errors and Omissions Regarding Proper Number of Ballots Counted (filed 11/19/10)
Respondent Mark Dayton's Brief in Opposition to Petitioner Emmer's "Petition to Correct Errors and Omissions Regarding Determination of Property Number of Ballots Counted" (filed 11/19/10)
Memorandum of Secretary of State Mark Ritchie in Opposition to Petition (filed 11/19/10)
Respondent Hennepin County Auditor Jill Alverson's Response to Petition (filed 11/19/10)
Order - Argument Scheduled for Monday, November 22, 2010 (entered 11/22/10)
Supplemental Brief in Support of Petition to Correct Errors and Omissions Regarding Determination of Proper Number of Ballots Counted (filed 11/22/10)
Order - Petition denied, opinion to follow (entered 11/22/10)
- Audio of Oral Argument
Opinion (entered 12/7/10)

Commentary

Silence of the Lambs

Dale A. Oesterle

With the election of 2012 now well over and past the second inauguration of the incumbent President, the historical analysis of the events has begun and will last as long as written human history lasts. An interesting tidbit may already be lost to the majesty of the moment.

The voters of three very different states, Alaska, New Hampshire, and Ohio, all had an opportunity to call state constitutional conventions. In each state the voters turned the opportunity down by very similar votes, 68%, 64% and 68% respectively against.

more commentary...

In the News

EXCLUSIVE: Voter fraud, or just errors?

Professor Dan Tokaji was quoted in a Cincinnati Enquirer article about whether citizens who cast two ballots in elections have committed voter fraud. Some citizens under investigation say they were confused about the process or worried their original votes, often sent via absentee ballot, wouldn't count. Tokaji said there is often a valid reason someone would cast an absentee ballot and then a provisional one at a voting location.

“It’s certainly not a crime or intentional double voting,” he said. “Officials are not supposed to count provisional ballots if an absentee ballot has been cast.”

Submitting both “doesn’t come close to voting fraud,” he said. “The burden is on the board of elections to make sure two votes don’t count.”

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Ohio House Committee Recommends Upholding Landis' Election Victory

Yesterday, an Ohio House of Representatives committee recommended 5-4 that the Ohio House uphold the election victory of Republican State Representative Al Landis over Democratic challenger Josh O'Farrell. In February, the Ohio Supreme Court sent the O'Farrell v. Landis record to the House for consideration. According to an article in the Canton Repository, committee chairman and State Representative Matt Huffman said he expects a vote by the full House later this month.

more info & analysis...

Major Pending Cases

more litigation...

Election Law @ Moritz | The Ohio State University Michael E. Moritz College of Law | 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. Individuals affiliated with the program may in their own personal capacity participate in campaign or election activity, or engage in pro bono representation of clients other than partisan candidates or organizations.

PDF files in this site require Adobe Reader to view (link opens in NEW window). If you have trouble accessing this page or need to request an alternate format, please email the Moritz Law Webmaster.

OSU Navigation Bar