Whether Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner's directive (2008-63), which gives voters a five-day window (30-35 days before the election) within which they may simultaneously register and receive an absentee ballot, impermissibly conflicts with state statutory election laws.  Plaintiffs are also challenge Advisory 2008-24, in which Secretary Brunner advises county boards of elections that they are not required to permit party observers at polling places during this period of time.  Plaintiffs are also alleging violations of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA).

DISCLOSURE

The district court issued the TRO on 10/10/10.  A three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit vacated this TRO on 10/11/08; however, a full panel of the appellate court, in an en banc review, reinstated the district court's TRO on 10/14/08.  The U.S. Supreme Court vacated the TRO in a per curiam decision released on 10/17/08.  The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the district court on 11/4/08.

Whether these voters' absentee ballots were wrongly excluded from the results.

Voters filed petition on 1/13.  Case consolidated with Coleman v. Franken election contest on 1/16.

Whether the County Board of Elections' decision to only provide absentee ballots to voters who have been registered more than 30 days before the date they request the absentee ballot violates various provisions of state and federal law.  This case is closely related to State ex rel. Colvin v. Brunner, in which the plaintiffs are attempting to challenge the Secretary of State's directive that interprets Ohio law as providing a "five-day window" in which individuals may simultaneously register and receive an absentee ballot.

DISCLOSURE

Complaint and Application for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) were filed on 9/24/08.  The TRO was issued by the Court on 9/29/08.

Whether the Franklin County Board of Elections shall be required (under HAVA, the ADA, and the 14th Amendment of the Constitution) to accomodate disabled voters who are unable to go in person to the Board of Elections to cure alleged defects in their absentee ballots.

Complaint and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed on 11/15/08.  Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction granted on 11/17/08.

Whether the challenged provisions of the Texas Election Code, which place limits on possession and delivery of absentee ballots by third parties, on unconstitutional on grounds that the provisions substantially burden the fundamental right to vote, violate due process, and violate equal protection of the law.

Preliminary injunction granted 10/31/06. Defendants have filed a motion to stay the order with the 5th Circuit 11/01/06. Motion to Stay Granted 11/3/06. U.S. Supreme Court has denied the application to vacate the 5th Circuit's stay 11/4/06. 5th Circuit entered an opinion vacating the preliminary injunction and remanding the case to the Eastern District of Texas (1/9/08). Amended complaint filed 2/7/08. Both sides filed for summary judgment on 6/12/08. A settlement was reached and a dismissal order was entered on 6/20/08.  Opinion filed 8/7/08 granting judgment for the defendant.

Whether the Marion County Board of Election may count challenged absentee ballots on Tuesday or whether the challenged ballots can counted later with the provisional ballots after additional scrutiny. 

NOTICE: The electronic docket for this case is not freely available to the public. Filings in this case are not being monitored on a daily basis. Select documents will be added to this page when possible.

Circuit Court issued order on 10/31/08 preventing challenged absentee ballots from being counted until later in the week.  The Court of Appeals issued a stay of this order pending an appeal.  The Indiana Supreme Court  reinstated the trial court's order on 11/3/08.   

Whether the Ohio Secretary of State's memorandum, which directs boards of elections to reject absentee ballot applications that do not indicate that the applicants are qualified voters, violates state law.  The applications in question were provided by Senator John McCain's presidential campaign.  The applications contained a box where applicants could indicate that they were qualified voters.  Secretary of State Brunner, in her memorandum, expressed the opinion that failure to check this box should result in the application being rejected.

DISCLOSURE

Complaint in mandamus filed on 9/17/08.  The Ohio Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in this case on 10/2/08 and ordered that the absentee ballots be counted. 

Plaintiff is asking the Ohio Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus to compel Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner to order county boards of election to permit individuals to observe in-person absentee voting.

Complaint filed 10/3/08.  The Court issued a decision on 10/16/08 ordering the Secretary of State to direct that obvsevers are permitted in early voting locations.

Whether Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner's directive (2008-63), which gives voters a five-day window (30-35 days before the election) within which they may simultaneously register and receive an absentee ballot, impermissibly conflicts with state statutory election laws. 

DISCLOSURE

A petition for writ of mandamus was filed with the Ohio Supreme Court on 9/12/08.  Answer filed on 9/22/08.  Plaintiff's brief filed 9/22/08.  The petition for writ of mandamus was denied on 9/29/08.

Whether the Ohio Secretary of State's memorandum, which directs boards of elections to reject absentee ballot applications that do not indicate that the applicants are qualified voters, violates state law.  The applications in question were provided by Senator John McCain's presidential campaign.  The applications contained a box where applicants could indicate that they were qualified voters.  Secretary of State Brunner, in her memorandum, expressed the opinion that failure to check this box should result in the application being rejected. 

Complaint filed on 9/19/08.  Answer filed 9/26/08.  Case dismissed for want of prosecution on 10/1/08.

Whether the Secretary of State's refusal to give certain minor political parties access to the November 2008 general election ballot is unconstitutional under the first and fourteenth amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

Moore v. Brunner (Socialist Party), Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Brunner, and McKinney v. Brunner (Green Party) have been consolidated by the court.  The court granted plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction in Moore on 8/21/08 and ordered that the Socialist Party candidate be placed on the November general election ballot.  The Green Party gave notice of voluntary dismissal on 9/12/08.

Whether the Secretary of State's refusal to give the Libertarian Party of Ohio access to the November 2008 general election ballot deprives "plaintiffs of speech, voting and associational rights secured by the First and Fourteenth amendments to the Constitution of the United States."

Complaint filed 6/6/08.  Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed on 6/16/08 and granted on 7/17/08.  Answer filed on 8/7/08.

Whether the Secretary of State's refusal to give the Libertarian Party of Ohio access to the November 2008 general election ballot deprives "plaintiffs of speech, voting and associational rights secured by the First and Fourteenth amendments to the Constitution of the United States."

Complaint filed 8/26/08.

Whether the Secretary of State's refusal to give the Libertarian Party of Ohio access to the November 2008 general election ballot deprives "plaintiffs of speech, voting and associational rights secured by the First and Fourteenth amendments to the Constitution of the United States."

Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed on 3/7/08.  Answer filed on 5/6/08.  Motion for PI granted on 6/2/08.  Case consolodated with Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Brunner on 8/05/08.  Secong Motion for PI granted (allowing Plaintiffs on the November ballot) on 8/21/08.

Whether South Carolina law, which provides that a candidate that seeks a nomination from multiple parties will be banned from appearing on the ballot if any one of those parties rejects his candidacy, violates the U.S. Constitution. 

Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed 8/7/08.  Motion to Intervene filed by the Charleston County Democratic Party on 8/22/08.  Response to Motion for Prelminary Injunction filed 8/25/08.  Answer filed on 8/28/08.

Whether Senator Barrack Obama is a U.S. citizen and eligible to hold the office of President of the United States.  Plaintiff is alleging that Senator Obama is falsely claiming to be a natural born citizen. 

Complaint and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) filed on 8/21/08.  Motion for TRO was denied by the Court on 8/22/08. 

Whether Senator John McCain is a "natural born citizen" and eligible to be the President of the United States under the provisions of Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution.

Complaint filed on 3/14/08. Motion to Dismiss filed on 4/30/08. Hearing on Motion to Dismiss is set for 7/24/08.  Motion to Dismiss granted on 7/24 and Judgment for defendant entered on 7/25.

Whether the court has the authority to order a recount of election results after the statutorily prescribed recount procedures have been exhausted and the Elections Canvassing Commission has certified that it is unable to determine the true vote under Florida law.

Judgment entered by Circuit Court on 10/20/08.  Notice of appeal filed 11/17/08.  Initial brief on the merits filed in Court of Appeals on 11/21/08.  Response filed on 11/21/08.  Appellee answer briefs filed 12/05/08.  Appellant's reply brief filed 12/09/08.  Court denied motion to review denial of stay pending appeal on 12/19/08. Circuit Court mandate entered 1/6/09.

Whether irregularities and close margin for the special election requires oversight by the court for counting and recounting votes, including those cast by absentee ballots.

Verified Petition and Order to Show Cause filed 3/31. Order requiring counting of absentee ballots to begin April 8 entered 4/6.  Decision and order entered 4/15.

Whether Alabama law that disfranchises individuals convicted of felonies involving moral turpitude is more more restrictive in its felony classification than provided for by the Alabama Constitution, and, thus, impermissibly conflicts with the state constitution and unduly burdens the fundamental right to vote.

NOTICE: The electronic docket for this case is not freely available to the public. Filings in this case are not being monitored on a daily basis. Select documents will be added to this page when possible.

The complaint was filed on 7/21/08.  The court determined that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the suit and dismissed the case on 10/9/08.  An appeal is expected.

The issue in this case is what constitutes a legal vote in the State of New Mexico and whether official are allowed to discern the intent of voters even when the ballot is marked improperly.

NOTICE: The electronic docket for this case is not freely available to the public. Filings in this case are not being monitored on a daily basis. Select documents will be added to this page when possible.

Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed on 10/23/08.  Response due on 10/29/08.  Writ of Mandamus granted on 10/30/08.

Whether Ohio's allegedly dysfunctional election system violates equal protection or due process clause of the 14th amendment.

Judgment entered 11/26/08.

Whether efforts by agents of the Republican Party to research questionable voter registrations and then subsequently disseminate the private information of those voters violate New Mexico law.

Complaint filed 10/27/08. Answer filed 11/21/08.  Motion to stay discovery and bifurcate discovery filed 12/8/08.  Request for hearing on motion filed 12/8/08.

Whether plaintiff's absentee ballot and voter registration were properly rejected under Minnesota Election Law.

Complaint filed on 11/18/08. Disposition - Settled on 2/4.

Whether Senate candidate Al Franken is entitled to receive an election certificate signed by the governor and secretary of state while an election contest brought by his opponent, Norm Coleman, is ongoing.

Petition filed by Franken on 1/13.  Norm Coleman filed motion to intervene 1/14. Brief of Al Franken filed 1/20. Respondents' Brief filed 1/26. Intervenor's Brief filed 1/26. Al Franken's Reply Brief filed 1/28. Opinion entered 3/6.

This action concerns the recount of votes in the very close 2008 Minnesota election for U.S. Senator.

NOTICE: Filings in this case are not being monitored on a daily basis. Select documents will be added to this page when possible.

Whether certain absentee ballots should be counted in relation to the current litigation regarding the 2008 Minnesota Senate election contest.

Petition filed by voters 2/23.  Order calling for memorandum of law entered 2/26. Memo on the Timeliness of Petition filed 3/3.  Affidavit of Charles N. Nauen filed 3/3. Norm Coleman filed Motion to Intervene on 3/5. Order entered 3/9.

Case decided by Ohio Supreme Court on 12/5/08.

The case involves the guidelines to be used for the counting of absentee ballots in the closely contested election recount.

Oral argument in the case is being held today (12/17).

Whether the parties had been given an opportunity pursuant to Election Law section 9-209(2)(d) to make objections to the casting or refusal to cast approximately 1,700 ballots found by Board of Elections personnel to be preliminarily invalid.

Decision and Order entered by the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department on 12/19/08.

Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief in the form of an order requiring the DNC to honor votes that were cast in the Florida Democratic primary election. Plaintiff alleges constitutional violations and violations of the Voting Rights Act.

Complaint filed 5/22/08.  Motion for Summary Judgment filed by DNC on 6/12/08.  Plaintiffs have yet to respond.  Plaintiffs filed an unoppsed motion to dismiss (their complaint had become moot) on 8/14 and the case was dismissed with prejudice on 8/15.

Whether Florida's amendment of statutory Section 103.101, which changed the date of Florida's primary election in violation of the Democratic National Party's rules, violated plaintiff's rights under the first and fourteenth amendments of the constitution.

Complaint filed 4/7/08. Defendants' Motions to Dismiss and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment are pending.  Court granted Motion to Dismiss as to the AG but denied it as to the Sec State (7/13).  Motion for Summary Judgment denied (7/13) and case is stayed until after the November elections.

The plaintiff, a registered Republican, is asking the Ohio Supreme Court in mandamus to order Jennifer Brunner to share HAVA mismatches with county BOE's in a user-friendly way that allows them to investigate mismatches.  Plaintiff is also  asking the court to require BOE's to look at this information and consider it in evaluating whether to count absentee ballots.

Complaint filed 10/17/08 in the Ohio Supreme Court.  Notice of Removal filed on 10/20/08 with federal district court.  The district court remanded the case back to the Ohio Supreme Court on 10/20/08.  Answer filed on 10/20 in Ohio SC.  Caused dismissed by the Ohio Supreme Court on 10/21/08.

Whether Alabama has failed to comply with the Help America Vote Act by not implementing technology or procedures required to create a statewide voter registration database.

Substance of D's HAVA compliance plan accepted, timeline rejected. Court has appointed Governor Bob Riley as Special Master to administer the plan.  Final Status Report filed by the Special Master on 8/22/08.  Final Order and Judgment issued on 9/18/08.

Whether Albuquerque's Voter ID statute, which requires photo identification of in-person voters but not absentee voters, violates equal protection, Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights, or creates an undue burden on the right to vote.

The district court granted partial summary judgment on the parties claims on 3/7/07. An appeal was filed with the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. The case is currently active. The court has ordered the parties to file briefs addressing the impact of the Crawford decision by June 17.  Oral arguments are set for 9/25/08.

Whether Georgia's voter ID law violates the Georgia Constitution.

Appellant filed brief on 10/15/08.  Request for oral argument was filed by Appellant on 11/4/08.  Appellee brief filed on 11/24/08. Motion to remand filed 12/3/08.  Motion to Withdraw Appeal filed 12/5/08.  Response to Motion filed 12/5/08.

(1) Whether Ohio's voter ID laws are unconstitutional as "confusing, vague, and impossible to apply" in violation of the right to vote; whether the laws are unconstitutional because they apply only to in-person voters and not to absentee voters; whether they are unconstitutional because they may bar voters who do not have required identification from voting on Election Day; whether they are unconstitutional because only some forms of ID must have current address; whether they are unconstitutional as a poll tax. (2) Whether Ohio's provisional-ballot laws are unconstitutionally vague and therefore violate Equal Protection and Due Process.

Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injuction on 10/14/08.  A hearing on the motion is set for Wednesday, 10/23/08.  Motion for Preliminary Injunction granted on 10/27/08. Amended complaint filed 11/21/08.  Answers filed 11/24/08. Brief filed by Plaintiffs NEOCH 1/20/09. Order Granting Motion for Extension of Time to File Resopnse entered 2/17.  Responses due 2/27.

Whether the Georgia State Board of Elections' new voter-registration rules, which require each completed application to register be (1) separately sealed before being handed to a private voter registration organizer and (2) not be copied, violate the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), and the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

District court case was stayed on 7/14/08 pending resolution of discovery-related mandamus action to be filed in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.  Petition for Mandamus was denied by the Court of Appeals on 9/24/08.

Whether the rejection of voter registrations that were made using an "old form" of the state voter registration application violates the National Voter Registration Act, the Voting Rights Act, and the U.S. Constitution.

Complaint and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed on 11/3/08. Agreed Stipulation of Dismissal filed by Plaintiff and Defendant 1/28/09. Order of Dismissal without Prejudice entered 2/4.

Whether the Lake County Board of Election’s establishment of satellite offices for in-person absentee ballot voting violates Indiana state election law. The Board of Elections claims that it was obligated to take the challenged actions in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act.

NOTICE: The electronic dockets for the state courts in this case are not freely available to the public. Filings in this case are not being monitored on a daily basis. Select documents will be added to this page when possible.

Wether the Republican Party of Florida can challenge voter elligiblity based on the fact the mail sent to voters adresses was undeliverable by the post office.

Complaint filed on 10/30/08.

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.

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. 

Whether Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell and other state officials have violated the National Voter Registration Act by failing to make voter registration applications available at certain social service agencies.

Motion to Dismiss Granted 12/28/06. Motion for Reconsideration of Opinion filed 1/12/07.  Appeal filed 6/6/07.    Opinion Reversing and Remanding entered on 10/28/08.  Motion to extend time to file petition for rehearing en banc filed 11/7/08.  Motion granted 11/14/08.

Whether Florida's new voter registration laws, which regulate the handling of voter registration applications by third-party voter registration organizations, are unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution. 

Complaint filed 4/28/08. Motion to dismiss for improper venue on filed on 5/8/08 and denied on 5/29/08.  Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed on 5/14/08 and denied on 8/6/08.  Notice of Appeal filed 9/5/08.  Case voluntarily dismissed on 10/23/08.

Whether an alleged Republican plan to challenge the voting registration of voters who appear on foreclosure lists violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).  The Republicans have denied any plan to engage in the alleged activities.

Complaint filed on 9/16/08.  Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction on 9/25/08.  Responses and replies have been filed with the court.

Whether the Secretary of State of Pennsylvania must require first time registrants to show ID before voting and whether the Secretary must provide access to voter registration information to local officials so that they can ensure the fairness of the election.

Complaint, Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and Motion to Expedite Discovery were filed on 10/17/08.  Motion to Expedite Discovery was denied on 10/24/08.  Application for special injunction was denied on 10/30/08. Notice of discontinuance entered 12/24/08.

R.I. Gen. Laws § 17-1-3 permits a person who has not registered to vote to appear at his or her city or town hall and cast a vote in a presidential election.  The Rhode Island Board of Elections has adopted a new administrative regulation that allows towns and cities to designate a different location for this same day voter registration procedure if "voting in a city or town hall has become impracticable due to inadequacy of the available facilities or other concerns."  The issue is whether this newly adopted administrative regulation impermissibly conflicts with R.I. Gen. Laws § 17-1-3.

NOTICE: The electronic docket for this case is not freely available to the public. Filings in this case are not being monitored on a daily basis. Select documents will be added to this page when possible.

Whether the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board (GAB) has met its obligations to bring Wisconsin into compliance with state and federal election laws, including the Help America Vote Act (HAVA).  Specifically, the Attorney General is seeking to require that the GAB run HAVA checks on voter registrations received prior to August 6, 2008.

DISCLOSURE

Case dismissed by trial court on 10/23/08.  Appeal filed with the Wisconsin Court of Appeals on 11/12/08 (noticed filed in circuit court on 11/7/08). Opinion/Decision that Appeal is Dismissed Pursuan to Rule 809.18 entered on 1/23/09.

Whether the allocation of voting equipment and other resources (or lack there of) by the State of Virginia violates the federal constition or the Voting Rights of 1965.

Complaint filed 10/27/08.

Whether a 2007 change in Alabama election law (changing the rules of succession for the Jefferson County Commission)  violates the preclearance provision Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Complaint filed 7/29/08.  Motion for Rule 16 Hearing filed 7/31/08.  Answer, Motion to Dismiss for lack of Jurisdiction, and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed on 8/18/08.  Voluntary Motion to Dismiss filed on 9/5/08 and granted on 9/5/08.  Case dismissed without prejudice on 9/5/08.

Whether the Pennsylvania Secretary of State properly certified electronic voting equipment used throughout the state.

Opinion entered 4/12/07 allowing the continuation of the litigation. Appeal to Pennsylvania Supreme Court filed on 5/10/07.  The parties agreed to stay of proceedings in the Commonwealth Court, pending resolution of the Supreme Court appeal.  Plaintiff unsuccesfully attempted to dissolve this voluntary stay in 2008, with the Commonwealth Court ultimately denying the plaintiff's motion on 4/4/08.  The case remains effectively stayed pending the outcome of the Supreme Court appeal.

Whether the Mississippi special election between Republican Roger Wicker and Democrat Ronnie Musgrove for the Senate should appear near the top of the November 4th, so as to appear next to other federal races, or whether it should appear at the bottom of the ballot so as to clearly distinguish the race as a "special election." 

Plaintiff filed her Complaint with the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County.  The Circuit Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on 9/10/08; however, the Defendants successfully applied to the Mississippi Supreme Court to have the TRO set aside.  The Circuit Court subsequently ordered the Defendants to put the Senate race near the top of the ballot on 9/12/08.  The Defendants have appealed this order to the Mississippi Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court ruled that placement of the race at the bottom of the ballot was illegal, but they did not order the governor to change the ballot.  Governor Barbour has agreed to move the race to the top of the ballot.  

Whether Ohio's use of Diebold and ES&S voting machines violate state law requirements for reliability, security, accuracy, verifiability, and accessibility.

Complaint filed 11/14/06; Motion to Dismiss filed 11/22/06; Answer filed 12/4/06. Motion to amend complaint granted 4/9/08. Continuance granted until 2/9/09 on 5/8/08. Dismissal by Plaintiff filed 1/12/09.  Termination of Case entered 1/12/09.  Strike Schedule Date (2/9/09) entered on 1/12/09.

Whether Premier Election Systems has fullfilled the terms of its contract with Cuyahoga County and the State of Ohio

Complaint filed 5/30/08.  State's Counterclaim filed 8/6/08.  Various answer and motions for misjoinder have been filed by counties.  Plaintiff filed a Motion to Dismiss on 9/11/08.

Whether the use of eSlate voting machines (which plaintiffs allege have not counted votes properly) violates HAVA, the Texas Election Code, or the U.S. Constitution.

Judgment rendered by US 5th Circuit Court of Appeal on 7/30/08 affirming the granting of Summary Judgment to the defendants by the District Court.  The plaintiffs filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiori with the U.S. Supreme Court on 10/21/08.  Petition was denied 1/12/09.

Whether the State of New York has meet its obligations under the national Help America Vote Act (HAVA), which requires, among other things, up-to-date and accessible voting machines.

Motion hearing held on 12/20/07. Supplemental Remedial Order issued 1/16/08, granting judgment for the Plaintiffs.  The Court is currently overseeing NY efforts to bring their election system into compliance with federal law.