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

A Special Master for the Cohen Case?

Edward B. Foley

There should be a strong presumption against special treatment just because the president is involved. 

more commentary...

In the News

Edward B. Foley

U.S. Supreme Court upholds Ohio voter purging process

Professor Edward Foley was quoted in The Blade about Ohio’s voter purge law, which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. 

 

“I don’t think there’s any real reason to believe that the drop-off is going to be significant,” Mr. Foley said. “The Ohio law that was upheld in this case never disenfranchised anybody.”

 

 

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Supreme Court Upholds Most Texas Districts in Racial Gerrymandering Case

In a 5-4 decision that reversed the ruling of the District Court, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the drawing of most of the disputed Texas districts did not violate the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act. The case is Abbott v. Perez.

more info & analysis...