1. Help
2. Campus map
3. Find people
4. Webmail
5. Search Ohio State

• About
  EL@M
  • About Us
  • Experts by Topic
• Faculty
  • Edward B. "Ned" Foley
  • Daniel P. Tokaji
  • Terri L. Enns
  • Steven F. Huefner
  • Donald B. Tobin
  • EL@M Fellows
  • EL@M Staff
  • Experts by Topic
• Election Law
  Litigation
  • Major Pending Cases
  • Archived Cases
• Current
  Features
  • News Wire
  • Key Questions for Key States
  • Compare State Election Laws
  • State-Specific Election Laws
  • State-by-State Coverage
  • Topic-by-Topic Coverage
  • Voting Machine Issues Nationwide (2008)
  • From Registration to Recounts (Book)
  • Major Election Law Reports
  • Equal Vote
  • Free & Fair
  • Featured Comments
• Archived
  Features
  • 50 Questions for 5 Key States
  • 2008 Pre-Election Litigation Risk Assessment
  • 2008 Primary Post-Election Timeline
  • Voter ID Litigation Nationwide
  • 2006 Election Overview
  • 2006 Recount Roundup
  • 2006 Ohio Primary Problems
  • 2006 Voting Technology Nationwide
  • 2006 Election Podcasts
  • Electronic Roundtable '06
  • Ohio Voter Registration Regulations
  • e-Book
  • Past Case Decisions
  • 2005 Redistricting Developments
• Biweekly
  Update
  • Subscribe
• Related
  Links
• McCain v.
  Obama
• Free & Fair
  (Foley)
• A Joint Project with
  the Moritz Law Library
• Media

State ex rel. Myles v. Brunner

(page last updated October 17, 2008 at 2:15 PM)

Case Information

All Courts: Ohio Supreme Court (Case 2008-1842 )
Topic(s): Absentee Ballots
State: Ohio
Date Filed: September 17, 2008

Issue:

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

Status:

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. 

Analysis: Ohio "Check-Box" Lawsuit

Related Case: State of Ohio ex rel. Doucher v. Brunner

Ohio Supreme Court Documents

• Complaint in mandamus (filed 9/17/08)
• Summons & complaint issued to respondent(s) (filed 9/18/08)
• Answer of Respondent (filed 9/22/08)
• Relator's merit brief (filed 9/25/08)
• Motion to waive S.Ct.R.VIII Sect.5(A)(8) (filed 9/25/08)
• Entry: Denied in part . Relator shall file seven copies of the evidence within 2 days of the date of this entry (entered 9/26/08)
• Notice of recusal of Justice O'Connor received by Clerk's Office (entered 9/25/08)
• Notice of recusal of Justice Stratton received by Clerk's Office (entered 9/25/08)
• Assignment of Judge William Herman Wolff, Jr. of the Second District Court of Appeals (entered 9/26/08)
• Assignment of Judge Lynn Charles Slaby of the Ninth District Court of Appeals (entered 9/26/08)
• Respondent's merit brief (filed 9/29/08)
• Evidence filed by Brunner (filed 9/29/08)
• Reply brief by Myles (filed 10/1/08)
• Slip opinion (filed 10/2/08)
• Reply brief of amici curiae Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, Daniel Tokaji, and ACLU of Ohio, in support of relators (filed 10/2/08)
• Motion for attorney fees and costs (filed 10/14/08)
  
  
  

Related EL@M Articles

• 2 voters sue Ohio elections chief, Akron Beacon Journal (AP), 9/17/08

Election Law @ Moritz | Professor Edward B. Foley, Director | electionlaw@osu.edu
Please note: Election Law @ Moritz is nonpartisan and does not endorse, support, or oppose any candidate, campaign, or party. Opinions expressed by individuals associated with Election Law @ Moritz, either on this web site or in connection with conferences or other activities undertaken by the program, represent solely the views of the individuals offering the opinions and not the program itself. Election Law @ Moritz institutionally does not represent any clients or participate in any litigation, but individuals affiliated with the program may from time to time in their own personal capacity engage in pro bono representation of clients other than partisan candidates or organizations.

The Ohio State University | Michael E. Moritz College of Law | 55 West 12th Avenue | Columbus, OH 43210-1391 | (614) 292-2631