Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Share

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

Union County Board of Elections v. Brunner

Case Information

Date Filed / Ended: February 5, 2008 / February 29, 2008
State: Ohio
Issue: Voting Technology
Courts that Heard this Case: Union County Common Pleas Court (Case 08 CV 0068); U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio (Case 2:08cv112); Franklin County Common Pleas Court (Case 08-CVH-02-2032); Ohio Supreme Court (Case 2008-0410)

Issue:

Whether the Ohio Secretary of State has the authority to require a county board of elections to use paper ballots in elections and whether such requirement violates the Help America Vote Act.

Status:

Complaint filed 2/5/08. Motion for Removal and Transfer filed 2/5/08. TRO issued 2/6/08. Case transferred to Franklin County Common Pleas Court. Notice of removal filed with U.S. District on 2/6/08. Motion to dissolve TRO filed in U.S. District court on 2/6/08. TRO dissolved by Franklin County Common Pleas Court.

Ohio Supreme Court Documents

Docket
Complaint (filed 2/22/08)
Sua Sponte Order (filed 2/25/08)
Answer of Respondent (filed 2/26/08)
Brief of Respondent Secretary of State (filed 2/28/08)
Relators' Merit Brief in Support of Writ of Prohibition (filed 2/28/08)
DECISION: Writ's denied (entered 2/29/08)

Franklin County Common Pleas Court Documents

Defendant's Motion to Dissolve Temporary Restraining Order
Memorandum Contra to Motion to Dissolve Temporary Restraining Order
Order Dissolving TRO
Defendant's Post Trial Brief
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (entered 2/19/08)

U.S. District Court Documents

Notice of Removal (w/ Ex. A) (filed 2/6/08)
Complaint filed in Union County CPC (2008 CV 0068) [See below] (filed 2/6/08)
Motion for TRO & Preliminary Injunction filed in Union County CPC by Plaintiffs [See below] (filed 2/6/08)
Temporary Restraining Order filed in Union County CPC [See below] (filed 2/6/08)
Defendant's Memo Contra Plaintiff's Motion for TRO (w/ Ex. A) (filed 2/6/08)
ORDER This matter is scheduled for a hearing on the parties' respective pleadings on February 12, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. (entered 2/7/08)
NOTICE by Defendant Jennifer Brunner Withdrawing Removal Petition (filed 2/11/08)

Union County Common Pleas Court Documents

Verified Complaint for Declaratory Judgment (w/ Ex. 1-3) (filed 2/5/08)
Motion for Removal and Transfer (filed 2/5/08) [not yet available]
Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (w/ Ex. 1-2, Proposed Order) (filed 2/6/08)
Temporary Restraining Order (filed 2/6/08)

Commentary

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

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 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 House Committee Recommends Upholding Landis' Election Victory

Yesterday, an Ohio House of Representatives committee recommended 5-4 that the Ohio House uphold the election victory of Republican State Representative Al Landis over Democratic challenger Josh O'Farrell. In February, the Ohio Supreme Court sent the O'Farrell v. Landis record to the House for consideration. According to an article in the Canton Repository, committee chairman and State Representative Matt Huffman said he expects a vote by the full House later this month.

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