OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

 

Ohio Democratic Party v. Husted

Case Information

Date Filed: May 8, 2015
State: Ohio
Issues: Absentee Ballots, Early Voting, Voter Registration
Courts that Heard this Case: United States District Court Southern District of Ohio (Case 15-cv-01802); Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Case 16-3561); United States Supreme Court (Case 16A-223)

Issue:

Whether Ohio regulations and laws regarding early voting, provisional and absentee ballots, and voter registration violate the First, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, the Voting Rights Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Status:

Complaint filed 5/8/15. Answer filed 6/10/15. Bench trial held November 2015. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed 5/24/16. Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion for Stay filed 6/9/16. Appellants' Brief filed 6/24/16. Appellees' Brief filed 7/11/16. 6th Circuit Opinion reversing District Court filed 8/23/16. Motion for Stay filed 8/27/16. 6th Circuit Order Denying Stay filed 8/30/16. Emergency Application to Stay 6th Circuit Judgment filed in U.S. Supreme Court 9/1/16. Response in Opposition to Stay filed 9/8/16. Reply in Support of Stay filed 9/12/16. Order Denying Stay Application filed 9/13/16.

 

District Court Documents

 

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Documents

 

U.S. Supreme Court Documents

Commentary

Edward B. Foley

The Electoral Fix We Really Need

Edward B. Foley

The Electoral College winner should be the majority choice in each state that counts towards that Electoral College victory.

more commentary...

In the News

Edward B. Foley

Gerrymandering Is Headed Back to the Supreme Court

Professor Edward Foley was requoted in Mother Jones about a gerrymandering case in Wisconsin on its way to the Supreme Court. Other legal actions on partisan gerrymandering in Maryland and in North Carolina may be bound for the Supreme Court as well.

While previous Supreme Court cases have noted that partisan gerrymanders are “incompatible with democratic principles,” The New York Times originally reported, the court has never officially struck a case down. While it remains unseen how the Supreme Court will rule in the upcoming cases, a 2004 ruling from a previous gerrymandering case could play a pivotal role in how the court stands in the future. 

“The ordered working of our Republic, and of the democratic process, depends on a sense of decorum and restraint in all branches of government, and in the citizenry itself,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in 2004. Kennedy’s statement is “the most important line” in the decision, Foley told The New York Times, adding,  “He’s going to look at what’s going on in North Carolina as the complete absence of that. I think that helps the plaintiffs in any of these cases.”


 

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Three-Judge Panel Finds Voting Rights Act and Constitutional Violations in Creation of Texas House of Representatives Districts

A little over a month after ruling that Texas\' Congressional redistricting plan violated the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Consistution, a three-judge panel similarly ruled (2-1) with regard to the creation of Texas\' state-level House of Representatives districts. The court issued a 171-page order in which it ruled for the state on some claims. The court also made separate findings of fact. The case is Perez v. Abbott.

more info & analysis...