OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

 

O'Farrell v. Landis

Case Information

Date Filed: December 24, 2012
State: Ohio
Issue: Election Contest
Courts that Heard this Case: Ohio Supreme Court (Case 12-2151)

Issue:

Whether various election irregularities occurred in Tuscarawas County requiring a recount under Ohio law of absentee and provisional ballots in certain precincts.

Status:

Petition filed 12/24/12. Motion for Hand Count and/or Inspection of Certain Ballots filed 12/28/12. Memo in Opposition filed 12/31/12. Answer filed 1/7/12. Order denying motion for hand count, visual inspection, and recount at this time and Order requiring Boards of Elections to place ballots under seal filed 1/8/13. Answer filed 1/9/13. Motion to Compel Production of Ballots filed 1/11/13. Motion to Dismiss Holmes County Board of Elections filed 1/18/13. O'Farrell's Memo in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss filed 1/22/13. Landis' Memo in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss filed 1/24/13. Answer of Holmes County Board of Elections filed 2/1/13. Evidence of Contestee Landis filed 2/4/13. O'Farrell's Merit Brief filed 2/11/13. Landis' Merit Brief filed 2/19/13. Entry Directing Clerk to file record with Ohio House of Representatives filed 2/22/13. Ohio House committee recommends that full House uphold election result, 5/7/13. Ohio House adopts Resolution 130 upholding election result, 5/22/13.

Ohio Supreme Court Documents

Ohio House of Representatives Documents

Related News Articles

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

White House drops Obama-era discrimination claim against Texas voter ID law

Professor Edward Foley was quoted in The Christian Science Monitor in an article about how the Trump administration dropped a discrimination claim against a Texas voter ID law. Viewed as one of the strictest voting requirements in the country by voting rights advocates, the law required voters to show one of seven valid forms of ID.

A federal appeals court ruled last year that the law disproportionately impacted minorities and those living in poverty. The court required the state to adjust its requirements before the general election. According to court testimony, Hispanic voters were twice as likely to lack proper ID under the law, while black voters were three times as likely.

“Voting litigation is increasing, not decreasing,” Foley said. “The main impression … is that when a law looks like it’s engaging in outright disenfranchisement of a valid voter, even conservative judges have been stopping that. [But] the judiciary is more tolerant with state legislatures adjusting issues of convenience and accessibility, if the adjustment is not outright disenfranchisement.”
 

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Three-Judge Panel Finds Voting Rights Act and Constitutional Violations in Creation of Texas House of Representatives Districts

A little over a month after ruling that Texas\' Congressional redistricting plan violated the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Consistution, a three-judge panel similarly ruled (2-1) with regard to the creation of Texas\' state-level House of Representatives districts. The court issued a 171-page order in which it ruled for the state on some claims. The court also made separate findings of fact. The case is Perez v. Abbott.

more info & analysis...