OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

Ohio Republican Party et al v. Brunner

Case Information

Date Filed / Ended: September 26, 2008 / October 17, 2008
State: Ohio
Issues: Absentee Ballots, Early Voting, Voter Registration
Courts that Heard this Case: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Case 2:08-cv-00913); U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit (Case 08-4242, 08-4243, 08-4322); U.S. Supreme Court (Case 08A332)

Issue:

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

Status:

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.

District Court Documents

U.S. Supreme Court Documents

Court of Appeals Documents - Second Appeal (08-4322)

Court of Appeals Documents - First Appeal (08-4242, 08-4243)

Related Links

Related Cases

Commentary

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...