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, Absentee Ballots
Current Court: U.S. Supreme Court (Case 16-1068)

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.

Subsequent 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.

Current Issue: Whether Ohio SB 205 and 216 unlawfully discriminate against minority voters and unconstitutionally burden the right to vote.

Status:

Plaintiffs' and Defendants' trial briefs filed 3/10/16. Trial at District Court held March 2016. Parties' proposed findings of fact filed 4/28/16. Defendants' post-trial brief filed 5/5/16. Plaintiffs' response to defendants' proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law filed 5/5/16. Opinion enjoining enforcement of Ohio statutes filed 6/7/16. 6th Circuit Opinion affirming District Court's attorney fee award (with some exceptions) filed 8/1/16. Opinion reversing District Court on most of plaintiffs' claims filed 9/13/16. Order denying rehearing en banc filed 10/6/16. Emergency Application to Stay Sixth Circuit Mandate filed in U.S. Supreme Court 10/25/16. Response in Opposition filed 10/28/16. Order Denying Emergency Application for Stay filed 10/31/16. Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed 3/3/17. District Court Opinion and Order Denying Motion to Extend Consent Decree filed 4/28/17.

Related Case: SEIU v. Husted

 

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 (attorney fees)

Court of Appeals Documents (appeal regarding validity of consent decree)

Court of Appeals Documents (emergency appeal regarding provisional ballots)

 

Court of Appeals Documents (attorney fees)

 

Court of Appeals Documents (appeal regarding SB 205 and SB 216)

 

U.S. Supreme Court 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

Gerrymandering Is Headed Back to the Supreme Court

Professor Edward Foley was requoted in Mother Jones about a gerrymandering case in Wisconsin on its way to the Supreme Court. Other legal actions on partisan gerrymandering in Maryland and in North Carolina may be bound for the Supreme Court as well.

While previous Supreme Court cases have noted that partisan gerrymanders are “incompatible with democratic principles,” The New York Times originally reported, the court has never officially struck a case down. While it remains unseen how the Supreme Court will rule in the upcoming cases, a 2004 ruling from a previous gerrymandering case could play a pivotal role in how the court stands in the future. 

“The ordered working of our Republic, and of the democratic process, depends on a sense of decorum and restraint in all branches of government, and in the citizenry itself,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in 2004. Kennedy’s statement is “the most important line” in the decision, Foley told The New York Times, adding,  “He’s going to look at what’s going on in North Carolina as the complete absence of that. I think that helps the plaintiffs in any of these cases.”


 

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

U.S. Supreme Court Affirms District Court: NC Redistricting Unconstitutional

In a 5-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the District Court, finding that North Carolina\'s Congressional redistricting plan violated the U.S. Constitution. The Court determined that racial considerations unlawfully predominated the designing of the contested districts. The case is Cooper v. Harris.

more info & analysis...