OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

Moore v. Brunner

Case Information

Date Filed: March 7, 2008
State: Ohio
Issue: Ballot Access
Courts that Heard this Case: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Case 2:08-cv-00224)

Issue:

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."

Status:

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.

Case Summary and Consolidation

Moore v. Brunner (2:08-cv-00819) (Socialist Party USA), Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Brunner (2:08-cv-00555) and McKinney v. Brunner (2:08-cv-00819) (Green Party of the United States) involve minor political party challenges to the Ohio Secretary of State's Directive 2007-09. This Directive established procedures for the placement of minor party candidates on the state election ballot.

On 7/25/08, the Secretary of State filed a motion to consolidate Moore with Libertarian Party, due to the similarity of the issues in the case and for the purposes of judicial economy and legal consistency. The cases were ordered to be consolidated by the Court on 8/5/08. On 8/21/08, the Court granted plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and ordered that the Socialist Party Candidate be placed on the general election ballot in November. On 8/29/08, the Secretary of State filed a motion to consolidate Libertarian Party and McKinney. This motion was granted on 9/2/08.

The documents listed below include the case consolidation orders and the Court's 8/21/08 order granting the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. For earlier documents, please check the individual case pages linked above.

District Court Documents

Commentary

Daniel P. Tokaji

The Supreme Court and the RIght to Vote

Daniel P. Tokaji

For over 130 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has said that the right to vote fundamental. The idea is that voting for candidates who represent our views is the primary means through which we protect our interests, whatever they might be.  Yet ecent events raise serious questions about the currently short-staffed Supreme Court’s capacity to protect the right to vote against 21st Century threats. 

more commentary...

In the News

Daniel P. Tokaji

An Obscure Ohio State Law Could Shake Up the Republican Convention

Professor Dan Tokaji was quoted in an ABC News article about the Republican Convention:

“It’s entirely imaginable that these kind of controversies will emerge if Donald Trump goes into Cleveland without 1,237,” said Dan Tokaji, an expert in election law at the Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University, referring the number of delegates needed to clinch the nomination. “There’s going to be a furious jockeying for these delegates.”

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

6th Circuit Reverses District Court, Rules Against State in Ohio Voter Rolls Case

In an opinion issued today, a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that Ohio\'s procedures for removing voters from registration rolls violates the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act. The case is Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute v. Husted.

more info & analysis...