OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

 

Kobach v. EAC

Case Information

Date Filed: August 21, 2013
State: National
Issue: Voter Registration
Courts that Heard this Case: District Court of Kansas (Case 5:13-cv-04095); United States Court of Appeals for Tenth Circuit (Case 14-3062); United States Court of Appeals for Tenth Circuit (Case 14-03072); U.S. Supreme Court (Case 14-1164 )

Issue:

Issue 1:

Did the EAC's failure to modify the State-specific instructions on the Federal Form to include a voter citizenship qualification constitute an agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed under the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 706(1)?

Issue 2:

Did the EAC's failure to modify the Federal Form infringe upon State sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?

Issue 3:

Did the EAC's failure to modify the Federal Form constitute an agency action that was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise made in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 706(2)?

Issue 4:

Did the EAC's failure to modify the Federal Form constitute an agency action that was in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, limitation, or short of statutory right under the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 706(2)?

Issue 5:

Did the EAC's failure to modify the Federal Form force the Plaintiff's to choose between two "unconstitutionally coercive" regulations violating the Tenth Amendment and the Seventeenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?

Status:

Complaint filed 8/21/13. Motion for preliminary injunction filed 10/23/13. Project Vote's motion to intervene filed 11/13/13. Inter-Tribal Council's motion to intervene filed 11/13/13. Valle Del Sol's motion to intervene filed 11/21/13. League of Women Voters' motion to intervene filed 11/21/13. EAC answer filed 11/25/13. Evidentiary Hearing set for 2/11/14 and 2/12/14. Order that EAC add language requested by Arizona and Kansas to the state-specific instructions on federal mail voter registration form filed 3/19/14. Defendant-Intervenors' Notice of Appeal filed 3/27/14. Defendant-Intervenors' Motion for Stay Pending Appeal filed 3/28/14.  Defendant's Notice of Appeal filed 4/8/14. Order Granting Motion to Consolidate Appeals filed 4/15/14. Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Stay filed 4/18/14. Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel filed 4/18/14. Defendants' Opposition to Expedited Motion to Compel and Support of Motion to Stay filed 4/22/14. Order denying motion to stay case filed 5/7/14. Appellants' Motion for Expedited Consideration and Stay Pending Appeal filed 5/8/14. Order for Temporary Stay filed 5/8/14. Order granting Stay Pending Appeal and Expedited Review filed 5/19/14. Appellants' Brief filed 5/21/14. Appelles' Response Brief filed 6/30/14. Appellants' Reply Brief filed 7/28/14. 10th Circuit opinion issued 11/7/14. State's Petition for Rehearing filed 12/22/14. Order denying Petition for Rehearing filed 12/22/14. Mandate filed 1/6/15. Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed 3/21/15. Order Denying Writ of Certiorari filed 6/29/15.

District Court Documents

Court of Appeals Documents (Defendant-Intervenors and EAC Defendants Consolidated)

U.S. Supreme Court Documents

 

Commentary

Edward B. Foley

A Special Master for the Cohen Case?

Edward B. Foley

There should be a strong presumption against special treatment just because the president is involved. 

more commentary...

In the News

Edward B. Foley

U.S. Supreme Court upholds Ohio voter purging process

Professor Edward Foley was quoted in The Blade about Ohio’s voter purge law, which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. 

 

“I don’t think there’s any real reason to believe that the drop-off is going to be significant,” Mr. Foley said. “The Ohio law that was upheld in this case never disenfranchised anybody.”

 

 

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Supreme Court Upholds Most Texas Districts in Racial Gerrymandering Case

In a 5-4 decision that reversed the ruling of the District Court, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the drawing of most of the disputed Texas districts did not violate the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act. The case is Abbott v. Perez.

more info & analysis...