HTTP 404 Not Found
Bernie.php

OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

 

Feldman v. Arizona

Case Information

Date Filed: April 15, 2016
State: Arizona
Issues: Voter Supression, Absentee Ballots, Provisional Ballots
Current Court: Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Case 16-16698, 16-16865)

Issue:

Whether Arizona's allegedly insufficient number of polling places disenfranchised voters in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, the First Amendment, and section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Whether an Arizona law prohibiting individuals from collecting the early ballots of others (aka "ballot harvesting") violates the Voting Rights Act. the Fourteenth Amendment, and the First Amendment because it disproportionately and adversely impacts minorities, unjustifiably burdens the right to vote, and interferes with freedom of association.

Status:

Complaint filed 4/15/16. Amended complaint filed 4/19/16. Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed 6/10/16. Motion to Dismiss filed 6/17/16. Joint Notice of Settlement Agreement as to polling place allocation issue filed 9/9/16. Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction as to HB 2023 (limiting "ballot harvesting") filed 9/23/16. Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed 9/23/16. Emergency Stay Motion filed in District Court 9/28/16. Order Denying Stay filed 10/4/16. Emergency Motion for Injunction filed in Ninth Circuit 10/4/16. Order Denying Emergency Motion for Injunction filed 10/11/16. Parties' opening briefs at Ninth Circuit filed 10/17/16. Opinion and Order Affirming District Court on "ballot harvesting" issue filed 10/28/16. Opinion and Order Affirming District Court on wrong precinct voting issue filed 11/2/16. Order Denying Injunction pending appeal on wrong precinct voting issue filed 11/4/16. En Banc Opinion and Order granting injunction against Arizona "ballot harvesting" law pending appeal filed 11/4/16. Emergency Application for Stay of Ninth Circuit Injunction filed 11/4/16. U.S. Supreme Court Order granting stay of Ninth Circuit injunction filed 11/5/16. Ninth Circuit En Banc Oral Argument scheduled for 1/17/17. Parties' supplemental briefs on mootness issue filed 12/5/16. Order rescheduling oral argument for June 2017 filed 12/13/16. Second Amended Complaint filed 12/28/16. Defendant and Intervenors motions to dismiss complaint filed 1/17/17. Order granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs' motion to dismiss complaint filed 3/3/17. State defendants' answer filed 3/17/17. Order denying intervenor defendants' motion to dismiss filed 4/13/17. Answer of Arizona Republican Party filed 4/27/17. Order denying motion to review magistrate's order compelling disclosure filed 5/10/17. Order rescheduling oral argument to week of Dec. 11, 2017 filed 5/24/17.

District Court Documents

 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Documents ("ballot harvesting" appeal)

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Documents (wrong precinct voting appeal)

U.S. Supreme Court Documents ("ballot harvesting" appeal)

 

 

 

 

Commentary

Edward B. Foley

A Special Master for the Cohen Case?

Edward B. Foley

There should be a strong presumption against special treatment just because the president is involved. 

more commentary...

In the News

Edward B. Foley

Columbus City Council Will See Some Reforms, But Not For Another Six Years

Professor Edward Foley was quoted in WOSU about changes to Columbus City Council that will stem from the passage of Issue 3.

 

“In a city where one political party is dominant, it makes sense to think about the citizen's commission to take it out of the hands of the politicians,” Foley said. “Because if you leave it in the hands of the politicians, it’s hard to get balance between the two parties.”


more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Supreme Court Decides Wisconsin and Maryland Gerrymandering Cases on Procedural Grounds

In opinions issued today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided two gerrymandering cases on procedural grounds. In an opinion in the Wisconsin case of Gill v. Whitford, the Court found that the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the legislature\'s redistricting plan. In an opinion in the Maryland case of Benisek v. Lamone, the Court determined that the District Court was within its discretion in denying preliminary relief to the plaintiffs challenging the legislature\'s redistricting plan.

more info & analysis...