OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

Hamilton v. Ashland County Board of Elections

Case Information

Date Filed / Ended: September 27, 2008 / November 13, 2008
State: Ohio
Issues: Voter Registration, Absentee Ballots
Courts that Heard this Case: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Case 1:08-cv-02546); U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals (Case 08-4439); Ashland County Common Pleas Court (Case 08-CIV-495)

Issue:

Whether Ohio may prohibit otherwise elligible citizens incarcerated in juvenile detention centers from voting in the county in which they are incarcerated and whether the hearing conducted by the Board of Elections into this matter violated Due Process.

Status:

After dismissal of the action by the federal Court of Appeals, plaintiffs filed an action in state court on 11/4/08.  The court, in its 11/13 decision, affirmed the decision of the Board of Elections that the incarcerated plaintiffs were not residents of Ashland County for voting purposes. 

Ashland County Common Pleas Court

  • Complaint (filed 11/4/08)
  • Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (filed 11/4/08)
  • JUDGMENT ENTRY GRANTING REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER FILED AS OUTLINED. HEARING ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE SHALL BE CONDUCTED ON 11/10/08 AT 1:15 PM AS OUTLINED (entered 11/4/08)
  • STIPULATION WITH EXHIBITS FILED PROSECUTOR (filed 11/7/08)
  • SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF DEFENDANTS (filed 11/7/08)
  • PLAINTIFF TROY TOMLIN, GIVES NOTICE OF DISMISSAL OF HIS CLAIMS AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS (filed 11/7/08)
  • MOTION IN LIMINE, MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION IN LIMINE (filed 11/10/08)
  • PLAINTIFFS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (filed 11/10/08)
  • JUDGMENT ENTRY PDF (entered 11/13/08)

Court of Appeals Documents

District Court Documents

Commentary

Edward B. Foley

The Constitution Needed a Judicial Assist

Edward B. Foley

“The majority contends that its counterintuitive reading of ‘the Legislature’ is necessary to advance the ‘animating principle’ of popular sovereignty.” With this sentence in his dissent (at page 14), Chief Justice Roberts gets to the heart of the debate in today’s 5-4 decision in the Arizona redistricting case.

more commentary...

In the News

David  Stebenne

Can Kasich win all 88 Ohio counties?

Professor David Stebenne was quoted in an Ohio Watchdog article about the possibility of Governor John Kasich winning all 88 Ohio counties in his re-election bid.

“It’s really hard to do,” he said. “As popular as the governor is and as weak as his opponent is, I doubt he’ll carry all 88 (counties).”

Stebenne said Ohio has some unusual counties, which tend to be really Democratic or really Republican.

He said a good example was the election of 1956, when President Dwight Eisenhower carried 87 of 88 Ohio counties.

“He lost one of the Appalachian counties — a poor county where the residents tend to vote Democratic no matter what,” Stebenne said. “There was even some humorous discussion in the Oval Office about that one county.”

Glenn and Voinovich were “the two most popular candidates in modern history,” he added, “and they each only did it once. While Kasich is popular, he really doesn’t have the broad appeal that these two did.”

Stebenne said that both Voinovich and Kasich come from communities that tend to be more Democratic in voter registration, but that Kasich’s first race for governor was more divisive than the races for Voinovich.

“Voinovich had electoral success in Cleveland and as governor because he was able to persuade Democrats to vote Republican,” he said. “Glenn had national appeal across party lines.”

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Fifth Circuit Affirms that Texas Voter ID Law Violates Voting Rights Act

Today, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals issued its opinion in the Texas voter ID case of Veasey v. Abbott, affirming in part and reversing in part the District Court\'s decision. The Fifth Circuit disagreed that Texas\' voter ID law is a poll tax under the 14th and 24th Amendments. The Court also vacated the District Court\'s judgment that the law was passed with a racially discriminatory purpose, remanding the case for a determination using the proper legal standard and evidence. However, the Court agreed that the law violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act due to its discriminatory effect. The Fifth Circuit remanded the case for the District Court to determine the appropriate remedy.

more info & analysis...