Last Updated: September 10, 2010 at 1:39 PM
State ex rel. Stokes v. Brunner
Case Information
Date Filed / Ended: October 3, 2008 / October 16, 2008
State: Ohio
Issues: Absentee Ballots, Early Voting
Courts that Heard this Case: Ohio Supreme Court (Case 2008-1950)
Issue:
Plaintiff is asking the Ohio Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus to compel Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner to order county boards of election to permit individuals to observe in-person absentee voting.
Status:
Complaint filed 10/3/08. The Court issued a decision on 10/16/08 ordering the Secretary of State to direct that obvsevers are permitted in early voting locations.
Ohio Supreme Court Documents
- Petition for Writ of Mandamus
(filed 10/3/08) - DECISION: Sua sponte, it is ordered by the Court that respondent shall file a response by Thursday, October 9, 2008; the parties shall file their evidence and briefs by Tuesday, October 14, 2008 (entered 10/6/08)
- Answer of respondent (filed 10/9/08)
- Evidence of relator (filed 10/14/08)
- Relator's merit brief (filed 10/14/08)
- Evidence of respondent (filed 10/14/08)
- Respondent's merit brief (filed 10/14/08)
- Notice of recusal of Justice O'Connor, received by Clerk's Office (filed 10/14/08)
- Notice of recusal of Justice Stratton, received by Clerk's Office (filed 10/14/08)
- Assignment of Judge William Herman Wolff, Jr., of the Second District Court of Appeals, effective October 15, 2008 (entered 10/15/08)
- Assignment of Judge Lynn Charles Slaby of the Ninth District Court of Appeals, effective October 15, 2008 (entered 10/15/08)
- Judgment Entry (entered 10/16/08)
- Slip Opinion (10/16/08)
Commentary
Provisional Ballots, Consent Decrees, and the Balance Between the Federal and State Governments
Owen Wolfe
A recent mandamus action filed by the Ohio Senate President and House Speaker Pro Tempore to require the Ohio Secretary of State to rescind directives issued in response to a consent decree issued in a federal case dealing with counting provisional ballots raises questions about the mechanics of state election law, the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the relationship between federal and state courts, the law of consent decrees, and more. I have attempted in this article to grapple with these issues in a fair and unbiased manner. Given the complexity of this problem, however, these matters are open to a variety of interpretations and this is just one approach. I hope, however, that this article can provide a useful starting point for a discussion about the future of provisional voting in Ohio and in the nation at large.
This paper is a first look by a student member of the Election Law @ Moritz team and reflects one possible perspective on the issue. Stay tuned, as more analysis from the team will follow as the litigation develops. Owen Wolfe is affiliated with the Ohio Democratic Party and the Obama ’12 campaign, but is not in any way associated with any litigation team working on this case. EL@M has posted the document because we believe it has public value and adds to the discourse on this topic.
more commentary...