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

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

Columbus City Council Will See Some Reforms, But Not For Another Six Years

Professor Edward Foley was quoted in WOSU about changes to Columbus City Council that will stem from the passage of Issue 3.

 

“In a city where one political party is dominant, it makes sense to think about the citizen's commission to take it out of the hands of the politicians,” Foley said. “Because if you leave it in the hands of the politicians, it’s hard to get balance between the two parties.”


more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Supreme Court Decides Wisconsin and Maryland Gerrymandering Cases on Procedural Grounds

In opinions issued today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided two gerrymandering cases on procedural grounds. In an opinion in the Wisconsin case of Gill v. Whitford, the Court found that the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the legislature\'s redistricting plan. In an opinion in the Maryland case of Benisek v. Lamone, the Court determined that the District Court was within its discretion in denying preliminary relief to the plaintiffs challenging the legislature\'s redistricting plan.

more info & analysis...