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

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 to Hear Wisconsin Gerrymandering Case

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider a gerrymandering case involving Wisconsin state legislative districts. The court also granted a request by the state to temporarily block the lower court\'s decision until the appeal is resolved. The case is Gill v. Whitford.

more info & analysis...