OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

 

McComish v. Bennett

Case Information

Date Filed: November 29, 2010
State: Arizona
Issue: Campaign Finance
Courts that Heard this Case: U.S. Supreme Court (Case 10-239); U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (Case 10-15166); U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (Case 10-15165)

Issue:

Whether Arizona campaing finance law violates the first and fourteenth amendments.

Status:

Opinion Issued  6/27/11. Reply Brief of Petitioner McCommish filed 3/15/11. Reply Brief of Petitioner Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC filed 3/16/11. Motion of Acting-Solicitor General to Argue as Amicus Curie Granted entered 3/18/11. Motion of Petitioners for Divided Argument Denied entered 3/18/11.  Case Argued 3/28/11.

Supreme Court Documents

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

Anti-Trumpersí Most Futile Effort Yet to Stop Trump from Being Sworn In

Professor Edward Foley was quoted in Law Newz about efforts to persuade Chief Justice John Roberts to decline conducting Donald Trump’s Oath of Office on Inauguration Day. Even though the U.S. Constitution requires the President to take an oath of office, the the Chief Justice is not required to administer it. It is unlikely that such attempts will prevent Trump from being sworn in, Foley said.

“I think the main point is that the oath doesn’t need to be administered by the Chief Justice,” he said. “After Kennedy’s assassination, a federal district judge in Texas administered the oath to Johnson.”
 

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Federal District Court Panel Finds Unconstitutional Gerrymandering in Alabama

In an opinion released today, a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama found unconstitutional gerrymandering in 12 Alabama districts. In a separate concurring and dissenting opinion, one judge on the panel would have found more districts unconstitutionally drawn. The case is Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama.

more info & analysis...