OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

 

NEOCH v. Husted

Case Information

Date Filed: October 24, 2006
State: Ohio
Issues: Voter ID, Provisional Ballots
Current Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit (Case 12-4354)

Issue:

Original Issues: (1) Whether Ohio's voter ID laws are unconstitutional as "confusing, vague, and impossible to apply" in violation of the right to vote; whether the laws are unconstitutional because they apply only to in-person voters and not to absentee voters; whether they are unconstitutional because they may bar voters who do not have required identification from voting on Election Day; whether they are unconstitutional because only some forms of ID must have current address; whether they are unconstitutional as a poll tax. (2) Whether Ohio's provisional-ballot laws are unconstitutionally vague and therefore violate Equal Protection and Due Process.

Current Issue: Whether an April 2010 Consent Decree requiring that provisional ballots improperly voted as a result of poll worker error still be counted is valid under Ohio law.

Status:

First Brief of Appellant for 11-3035/ 11-3036 filed 3/25/11.  Appellant's Brief filed 3/30/11.  Letter Allowing for Filing of Brief Instanter by Ohio Attorney General's Office filed 3/31/11.  Appellee's Brief filed 4/27/11. Related Ohio Supreme Court action dismissed 5/11/12. Oral argument on validity of Consent Decree held 6/27/12. Opinion and Order Upholding the Consent Decree filed 7/9/12. Notice of Appeal filed 7/19/12. Appellant's briefs filed 8/20/12. Plenary Opinion and Order issued 8/27/12. NEOCH's appellate brief filed 9/4/12. Husted's reply brief filed 9/10/12. Oral argument calendar filed 9/17/12. Oral argument held 10/1/12. 6th Circuit Opinion issued 10/11/12. District Court opinion on remand announced from bench 10/24/12 - written opinion will follow. Written opinion and order denying plaintiffs' motion to modify consent decree and granting defendants' motion to modify consent decree filed 10/26/12. Emergency motion to clarify scope of 2010 consent decree filed 11/1/12. Order for expedited briefing schedule filed 11/2/12. Plaintiffs' Joint Notice of Husted's Directive filed 11/2/12. State's memorandum in Opposition filed 11/6/12. Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion filed 11/13/12. Notice of Appeal filed 11/13/12. Motion for Emergency Stay filed 11/14/12. Motion for Stay Granted 11/16/12. Revised Briefing Schedule filed 1/7/13. Briefing Scheduled Extended 5/15/13.

Related Cases: State ex rel. Skaggs v. Brunner, SEIU v. Husted

Consolidated Case: Ohio Republican Party v. Brunner

Disclosure: EL@M Senior Fellow Daniel Tokaji is one of the attorneys representing amici League of Women Voters of Ohio and Common Cause of Ohio in this case. No EL@M member who participates in any lawsuit covered on the EL@M website is involved in generating the website's information or analysis on that lawsuit.

District Court Documents

Court of Appeals Documents (on counting 2012 provisional ballots)

Court of Appeals Documents (on denial of motion to vacate consent decree)

Court of Appeals Documents (on appeal of Attorneys' Fees Award)

State of Ohio's Attempt to Intervene

Secretary of State's Appeal to the Sixth Circuit [Filed by Ohio Attorney General without the Secretary of State's participation]

Related Links

Related EL@M Stories

News Stories

Commentaries

Commentary

Justin   Levitt

Arizona: Voter Registration and the Road Ahead

Justin Levitt

 

June arrived with two election law cases at the Supreme Court. One is still pending: a highly anticipated decision on section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The other, more frequently overlooked, was decided yesterday. And there are some quirks of the opinion that seem to depart from the swiftly congealing conventional wisdom that the states might actually have "won," and now need only run out the clock.

more commentary...

In the News

Michelle  Alexander

Johnson: Disenfranchising felons hits minorities hardest

Professor Michelle Alexander was quoted in an Athens Banner-Herald article from her book "The New Jim Crow." The article focuses on the disenfranchisement of felons in states like Virginia, where more than seven percent of the adult population cannot vote due to felony charges. In Virginia, Gov. Robert McDonnell is taking steps to restore the right to vote to nonviolent felons.

Alexander's book calls on the idea that disenfranchising felons affects minorities most. She calls voting-rights restoration processes a “bureaucratic maze” that is “cumbersome, confusing and onerous.”

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Supreme Court: NVRA Pre-empts Arizona's Proof of Citizenship Law

In a 7-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that the NVRA preempts an Arizona law requiring documentation of citizenship to accompany voter registration forms. The case is Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.

more info & analysis...