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

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 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...