OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


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)


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.

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


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...