OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

 

Pulaski County Election Commission v. Arkansas State Board of Election Commissioners

Case Information

Date Filed: March 12, 2014
State: Arkansas
Issues: Absentee Ballots, Voter ID, Voter Eligibility
Courts that Heard this Case: Circuit Cout of Pulaski County (Case 60CV-14-1019); Arkansas Supreme Court (Case CV 14-37I)

Issue:

Original Issue: Whether the State Board of Election Commissioners' adoption of Emergency Rules regarding voter qualification requirements were contrary to state statute and in violation of the separation of powers doctrine.

Additional Issue on Appeal: Whether Circuit Court correctly held state voter qualification statute unconstitutional under Arkansas' Constitution.

Status:

Petition for Declaratory Judgment filed 3/12/14. Republican Party of Arkansas' Motion to Intervene filed 3/26/14. Amended Petition for Declaratory Judgment filed 4/3/14. Republican Party of Arkansas' Amended Motion to Intervene filed 4/6/14. Intervenors' Motion to Dismiss filed 4/6/14. Order granting Motion to Intervene filed 4/15/14. Intervenors' Motion for Summary Judgment filed 4/17/14. Defendant's Answer to Amended Petition filed 4/18/14. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed 4/18/14. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment filed 4/18/14. Judgment granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment filed 4/24/14. Defendant's Notice of Appeal filed 4/25/14. Appellant's Brief filed 5/2/14. Intervenors' Brief filed 5/2/14. Appellees' Brief filed 5/2/14. Opinion filed 5/16/14.

Supreme Court of Arkansas Documents

Circuit 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 opinion authored by Justice Kagan, 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...