Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Share

Last Updated: April 26, 2013 at 10:30 AM

Fair Elections Ohio, The Amos Project, et al v. Husted

Case Information

Date Filed: October 15, 2012
State: Ohio
Issue: Absentee Ballots
Current Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Case 1:12-cv-00797-SJD)

Issue:

Whether it is constitutional for Ohio to fail to make provisions for persons arrested after the absentee ballot deadline (the Saturday before the election at noon) to vote from jail.

Status:

Complaint filed 10/15/12. First-amended complaint filed 10/18/12. Hearing on motion for Temporary Restraining Order set for 10/23/12. Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order denied 11/1/12. Answer filed 11/6/12. Joint Discovery Plan filed 12/28/12. Preliminary Pretrial Order filed 1/16/13. Answer of Defendant Preisse filed 1/22/13.

District Court Documents

Complaint (filed 10/15/12)
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order Including Memorandum and Exhibits in Support (filed 10/15/12)
Court Order Concerning Telephonic Status Conference (filed 10/16/12)
Notice of Hearing on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (filed 10/18/12)
First Amended Complaint (filed 10/18/12)
Plaintiff's Pre-hearing Memorandum in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (filed 10/23/12)
Hearing Minutes (filed 10/24/12)
Post-Hearing Brief of County Board of Election Defendants (filed 10/25/12)
Husted and DeWine's Post-Hearing Brief (filed 10/25/12)
Plaintiff's Post-Hearing Memorandum (filed 10/26/12)
Defendant Ratliff's Request to be Removed From Lawsuit (filed 10/26/12)
Plaintiffs' Notice of Supplemental Authority (filed 10/31/12)
Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (filed 11/1/12)
Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (filed 11/6/12)
Answer of Frank Cloud (filed 11/7/12)
Answer of Defendant Burke (filed 11/13/12)
Answer of Defendant Grooms (filed 11/19/12)
Pretrial Conference and Discovery Schedule (filed 11/26/12)
Answer of Defendant Ratliff (filed 12/4/12)
Joint Discovery Plan (filed 12/28/12)
Waiver of the Service of Summons (filed 1/10/13)
Preliminary Pretrial Order (filed 1/16/13)
Answer of Defendant Preisse (filed 1/22/13)
Proposed Second Amended Complaint (filed 2/3/13)
Leave to Amend Granted (filed 2/6/13)
Second Amended Complaint (filed 2/8/13)
Answer to Second Amended Complaint (filed 2/21/13)
Motion to Modify Pretrial Scheduling Order (filed 4/11/13)
Order Granting Motion to Modify Scheduling Order (filed 4/12/13)
Amended Pretrial Order (filed 4/25/13)

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 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...

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