Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Share

Last Updated: September 10, 2010 at 1:39 PM

Shad v. Ritchie

Case Information

Date Filed / Ended: February 23, 2009 / March 9, 2009
State: Minnesota
Issue: MN Senate race 2008
Courts that Heard this Case: Minnesota Supreme Court (Case A09-345)

Issue:

Whether certain absentee ballots should be counted in relation to the current litigation regarding the 2008 Minnesota Senate election contest.

Status:

Petition filed by voters 2/23. Order calling for memorandum of law entered 2/26. Memo on the Timeliness of Petition filed 3/3. Affidavit of Charles N. Nauen filed 3/3. Norm Coleman filed Motion to Intervene on 3/5. Order entered 3/9.

Minnesota Supreme Court Documents

MN Courts Document Page

Petition by Certain MN Voters to Have Their Votes Counted (filed 2/23/09)
Order (entered 2/26/09)
Memorandum Regarding Timeliness of Petition (filed 3/3/09)
Affidavit of Charles N. Nauen (filed 3/3/09)
Motion of Norm Coleman to Intervene (filed 3/5/09)
ORDER (entered 3/9/09)

Commentary

A Poster Child for Dysfunctional Districting

Daniel P. Tokaji

Fifty years ago next month, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Baker v. Carr (1962), inaugurating the “reapportionment revolution” which led to the redrawing of legislative districts across the country. This milestone provides the opportunity to reflect not only on what has been accomplished, but also on what still needs to be done.

more commentary...

In the News

This week: Bama voting rights case in DC courtroom on Thursday

Professor Daniel Tokaji, a senior fellow at Election Law @ Moritz, was quoted by The Birmingham News in an article about a local county's crusade to end 47 years of federal government oversight of its election returns.

Shelby County is hoping a federal appeals court will agree that the county no longer needs the U.S. Justice Department to approve changes in the ways elections are conducted because the area has progressed from its discriminatory past. It is unclear whether the case would be the vehicle with which justices of the U.S. Supreme Court would review the constitutionality of Section 5.

"I am reasonably confident they're going to take up the question of Section 5 constitutionality within the next few years," Tokaji said. "It could be Shelby County, it could be South Carolina, or some other."

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Federal Court Finds Equal Protection Violation

In the Hunter case, involving provisional ballots in a local Ohio election from 2010, the federal district court has ordered that ballots must be counted if they are otherwise eligible if they were miscast because of poll worker error.

more info & analysis...

Major Pending Cases

more litigation...

Election Law @ Moritz | The Ohio State University Michael E. Moritz College of Law | electionlaw@osu.edu

Please note: Election Law @ Moritz is nonpartisan and does not endorse, support, or oppose any candidate, campaign, or party. Opinions expressed by individuals associated with Election Law @ Moritz, either on this web site or in connection with conferences or other activities undertaken by the program, represent solely the views of the individuals offering the opinions and not the program itself. Election Law @ Moritz institutionally does not represent any clients or participate in any litigation. Individuals affiliated with the program may in their own personal capacity participate in campaign or election activity, or engage in pro bono representation of clients other than partisan candidates or organizations.

PDF files in this site require Adobe Reader to view (link opens in NEW window). If you have trouble accessing this page or need to request an alternate format, please email the Moritz Law Webmaster.

OSU Navigation Bar