OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

 

Share

Last Updated: January 4, 2012 at 12:19 PM

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

Top 10 Election Issues

Commentary

Provisional Ballots, Consent Decrees, and the Balance Between the Federal and State Governments

Owen Wolfe

A recent mandamus action filed by the Ohio Senate President and House Speaker Pro Tempore to require the Ohio Secretary of State to rescind directives issued in response to a consent decree issued in a federal case dealing with counting provisional ballots raises questions about the mechanics of state election law, the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the relationship between federal and state courts, the law of consent decrees, and more. I have attempted in this article to grapple with these issues in a fair and unbiased manner. Given the complexity of this problem, however, these matters are open to a variety of interpretations and this is just one approach. I hope, however, that this article can provide a useful starting point for a discussion about the future of provisional voting in Ohio and in the nation at large.

This paper is a first look by a student member of the Election Law @ Moritz team and reflects one possible perspective on the issue. Stay tuned, as more analysis from the team will follow as the litigation develops. Owen Wolfe is affiliated with the Ohio Democratic Party and the Obama ’12 campaign, but is not in any way associated with any litigation team working on this case. EL@M has posted the document because we believe it has public value and adds to the discourse on this topic.

more commentary...

In the News

Steven M. Davidoff

New Share Class Gives Google Founders Tighter Control

Professor Steven Davidoff, writing as the Deal Professor for The New York Times DealBook, wrote a column about Google's new share class. The tech company created a nonvoting share class in order to give its founders tighter control of the company. They did this, they said, in order to "focus on the long term."

Davidoff said this could create a pattern: "In the meantime, one thing is certain. The clear trend in technology companies is to deny shareholders this choice and a real vote. In other words, expect more Google followers."

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Niehaus and Blessing File Notice of Dismissal in Ohio Supreme Court

In accordance with Judge Marbley's order issued orally late yesterday in the NEOCH v. Husted case, Ohio legislators Thomas Niehaus and Louis Blessing have filed a notice of dismissal without prejudice of their mandamus action in the Ohio Supreme Court.

more info & analysis...

Major Pending Cases

more litigation...