OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

League of Women Voters v. Rokita

Case Information

Date Filed: June 20, 2008
State: Indiana
Issue: Voter ID
Courts that Heard this Case: Marion County Superior Court (Case 49D13-0806-PL-027627); Indiana Court of Appeals (Case 49A02-0901-CV-00040); Indiana Supreme Court (Case 49S02-1001-CV-00050)

Issue:

Whether Indiana's Voter ID law is unconstitutional under provisions of the Indiana State Constitution.

Status:

Oral argument 3/4/10.  Final Opinion Affirming the Decision of the Trial Court and Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss entered 6/30/10.  Opinion Certified on 8/13/10.

Supreme Court Documents

Case Docket

Court of Appeals Documents

Case Docket

  • Notice of Appeal (filed 1/15/09)
  • Appellants Case Summary (filed 1/15/09)
  • Brief of Appellants PDF (filed 3/2/09)
    • Appendix
  • Appellee's Petition for Permission to File a Belated Brief (filed 4/3/09)
    • Appellee's Motion to Filed a Belated Brief (filed 4/6/09)
  • Appellee's Verified Motion to File Belated Brief of Appellee and Motion to File Belated Brief of Appellee Instater are GRANTED (entered 4/15/09)
    • Clerk of Court is directed to file the Appellee's brief as of the date of this order
    • Appellant's reply brief, if any shall be filed within 15 days of this order
    • Appellant's reply brief received, awaiting permission to file (5/1/09)
      • Order to File Reply Brief entered (5/12/09)
  • Appellant's Additional Citation of Authority PDF (filed 7/17/09)
  • Appellee's Response to Appellants' Statement of Additional Authorities (filed 8/14/09)
  • Opinion -- Reversing trial court and Remanding with instructions PDF (entered 9/17/09)

Trial Court Documents

NOTICE: The electronic docket for this case is not freely available to the public. Filings in this case are not being monitored on a daily basis. Select documents will be added to this page when possible.

Related EL@M Stories

Commentary

Daniel P. Tokaji

Why the Supreme Court Shouldn’t Intervene in Ohio

Daniel P. Tokaji

Briefing is now in the U.S. Supreme Court on Ohio’s emergency motion to stay the district court injunction restoring the rules regarding same day registration and early voting that existed before legislation enacted earlier this year (SB 238). In a previous post, I explained why the district court and Sixth Circuit panel’s rulings were faithful applications of legal precedent requiring close attention to the context in which restrictions on voting are enacted. This post explains why it would be unwise and disruptive for the Supreme Court to change the rules now – now literally on the eve of an election -- responding to comments that my colleague Ned Foley posted yesterday.

more commentary...

In the News

Daniel P. Tokaji

Ohio treasurer receives OK to host town halls

Professor Daniel Tokaji was quoted in an article from the Associated Press about an attorney general opinion that allows the Ohio treasurer to conduct telephone town halls using public money. The opinion will likely have broad ramifications for the upcoming elections, Tokaji said.

“As a practical matter, while that legal advice is certainly right, very serious concerns can arise about whether these are really intended to inform Ohio constituents about the operations of his office or if they’re campaign events,” he said.

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Ohio Files Emergency Application for Stay with SCOTUS in Early Voting Case

Today, the state of Ohio filed an emergency application in the U.S. Supreme Court for a stay of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision issued yesterday. That decision affirmed the District Court in blocking an Ohio law reducing the number of days for early voting. The case is NAACP v. Husted.

more info & analysis...