OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

Share

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

Texas Democratic Party v. Williams

Case Information

Date Filed / Ended: February 13, 2007 / January 12, 2009
State: Texas
Issue: Voting Technology
Courts that Heard this Case: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Case 1:07-cv-00115); U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (Case 07-51064); U.S. Supreme Court (Case 08-540)

Issue:

Whether the use of eSlate voting machines (which plaintiffs allege have not counted votes properly) violates HAVA, the Texas Election Code, or the U.S. Constitution.

Status:

Judgment rendered by US 5th Circuit Court of Appeal on 7/30/08 affirming the granting of Summary Judgment to the defendants by the District Court.  The plaintiffs filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiori with the U.S. Supreme Court on 10/21/08.  Petition was denied 1/12/09.

U.S. Supreme Court Documents

  • Petition for a Writ of Certiori PDF (filed 10/21/08)
  • Waiver of right of respondent Hope Andrade, Texas Secretary of State to respond (filed 11/24/08)
  • Distributed for Conference of 1/9/09 (entered 12/3/08)
  • Petition DENIED. (entered 1/12/09)

Court of Appeals Documents

District Court Documents

Commentary

Donald B. Tobin

FAQ on social welfare organizations

Donald B. Tobin

The Frank E. and Virginia H. Bazler Designated Professor in Business Law and a senior fellow at Election Law @ Moritz explains the nuances of social welfare organizations and federal regulations related to them.

more commentary...

In the News

Donald B. Tobin

How Did The IRS Get The Job Of Vetting Political Activity?

Professor Donald Tobin was interviewed by the Boston NPR station on its show Here & Now about the Internal Revenue Service's investigation into groups classified as social welfare organizations (marked by the 501(c)(4) tax classification). The IRS was in search of groups that are not focusing primarly on the social welfare of the country, but have a strong political advocacy facet. Political advocacy groups might want to be classified as 501(c)(4) organizations because under that classification they do not have to disclose their donors.

"The key is if you are going to be engaged in candidate-type advocacy, and if you're going to intervene in elections and engage in election advocacy, we want disclosure of who your donors are," Tobin said.

“What groups are trying to do here is avoid having to disclose,” Tobin continued. “By earning the classification of social welfare, they’re avoiding the campaign disclosure that’s required for political organizations. So that’s really the underpinning of why we have this mess of the IRS having to get in and investigate and figure out whether an organization is political or not.”

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Ohio Secretary of State Releases Report on Voter Fraud

Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted released a report today on voter fraud in Ohio during the 2012 general election. In a press release, Husted stated that while voter fraud does exist in Ohio, "it is not an epidemic." According to the report, 135 voter fraud cases have been referred to law enforcement for possible prosecution. Twenty of these cases involved voters attempting to vote in Ohio and another state. The report shows that 115 cases were referred to local Ohio county prosecutors. According to Husted as quoted in the Columbus Dispatch, most of these cases involved voters attempting to vote twice within the state, and in a "majority" of instances, only one vote was counted.

more info & analysis...

Major Pending Cases

more litigation...