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

Edward B. Foley

A Special Master for the Cohen Case?

Edward B. Foley

There should be a strong presumption against special treatment just because the president is involved. 

more commentary...

In the News

Edward B. Foley

U.S. Supreme Court upholds Ohio voter purging process

Professor Edward Foley was quoted in The Blade about Ohio’s voter purge law, which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. 

 

“I don’t think there’s any real reason to believe that the drop-off is going to be significant,” Mr. Foley said. “The Ohio law that was upheld in this case never disenfranchised anybody.”

 

 

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Supreme Court Upholds Most Texas Districts in Racial Gerrymandering Case

In a 5-4 decision that reversed the ruling of the District Court, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the drawing of most of the disputed Texas districts did not violate the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act. The case is Abbott v. Perez.

more info & analysis...