OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

 

SEIU v. Husted

Case Information

Date Filed: June 22, 2012
State: Ohio
Issue: Provisional Ballots
Courts that Heard this Case: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Case 2:12-cv-562); United States 6th Circuit Court of Appeals (Case 12-4264)

Issue:

Whether the failure to ensure that all provisional ballots are properly counted violates the 14th Amendment, the right to vote, the 17th amendment and/or federal voting statutes.

Status:

For latest updates, see NEOCH v. Husted.

Related Cases: NEOCH 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.

 

 

Court of Appeals Documents (attorney fees)

District Court Documents

Court of Appeals Documents

Commentary

Edward B. Foley

Accuracy About Voting—Needed on Both Sides of Debate

Edward B. Foley

The Golden Rule fully applies: speak truthfully about voting as you would have others also speak truthfully about voting.

more commentary...

In the News

Daniel P. Tokaji

Donald Trump video outlines first 100 day plans

Professor Dan Tokaji was quoted on Fox28 about Donald Trump’s latest video outlining plans for his first 100 days in office.

"Take immigration for example, one of the cornerstones of the Trump campaign, not just building the wall, but reversing some of President Obama's actions on immigration, in particular the protection of the immigrant children," Tokaji said. "There will be a big backlash from the growing Latino population if he acts too aggressively on that, something that could hurt the Republican Party for decades."

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

In Michigan Recount, Conflicting Rulings from Sixth Circuit and Michigan Court of Appeals

Yesterday, the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals and the Michigan Court of Appeals issued differing opinions regarding whether the Jill Stein-initiated recount should proceed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court\'s order requiring the recount to commence, while the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that the Board of State Canvassers should not have granted Stein\'s recount petition as a matter of state law. Another hearing is scheduled in federal court today. The cases are Stein v. Thomas (federal court) and Schuette v. Board of State Canvassers (state court).

more info & analysis...