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. Order Denying Writ of Certiorari filed 6/19/17.

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

Of X-Rays, CT Scans, and Gerrymanders

Edward B. Foley

Progress in the detection of malignant redistricting.

more commentary...

In the News

Edward B. Foley

Ranked-choice voting: A better way or chaos?

Professor Edward Foley’s book, “Ballot Battles: The History of Disputed Elections in the United States” was quoted in The Ellsworth American, in an article about ranked-choice voting in Maine.

Plurality language was added to Maine’s Constitution in 1880 after none of the candidates for governor in the election of 1879 received a majority vote.

“After this ordeal, the state eliminated the requirement that a gubernatorial candidate win a majority in order to win the office outright; instead, a plurality would suffice,” Foley writes.
 

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

U.S. Supreme Court Grants Texas\' Request for Stay in Redistricting Case

In two 5-4 votes, the U.S. Supreme Court granted stays in a Texas redistricting case involving Congressional and state house questions, putting on hold the district court\'s orders for the Texas legislature to redraw certain district lines. The stays will be in place until the Supreme Court rules on Texas\' appeal, likely next year. The case is Perez v. Abbott.

more info & analysis...