OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

Premier Election Systems v. Cuyahoga County

Case Information

Date Filed: May 30, 2008
State: Ohio
Issue: Voting Technology
Courts that Heard this Case: Franklin County Common Pleas Court (Case 08 CV 007841)

Issue:

Whether Premier Election Systems has fullfilled the terms of its contract with Cuyahoga County and the State of Ohio

Status:

Complaint filed 5/30/08.  State's Counterclaim filed 8/6/08.  Various answer and motions for misjoinder have been filed by counties.  Plaintiff filed a Motion to Dismiss on 9/11/08.

Trial Court Documents

  • Complaint PDF (filed 5/30/08)
  • Answer and Counterclaim PDF (filed 6/5/08)
  • Answer and Counterclaim of Cuyahoga County, et al. PDF (filed 7/15/08)
  • Crossclaim and First Amended Counterclaim PDF (filed 8/6/08)
  • Answer and Crossclaim (Guernsey County) (filed 8/27/08)
  • Answer and Motion for Misjoinder (Montgomery County) PDF (filed 8/27/08)
  • Answer to Crossclaim (Butler County) PDF (filed 9/5/08)
  • Answer to Crossclaim (Greene County)(filed 9/5/08)
  • Consent to Move or Plead (Stark County) (filed 9/5/08)
  • Consent to Move or Plead (Belmont County) (filed 9/5/08)
  • Motion to Dismiss and Memo in Support PDF (Miami County) (filed 9/10/08)
  • Answer to Counterclaim (Cuyahoga County) (filed 9/10/08)
  • Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss PDF (filed 9/11/08)
  • MOTION GRANTED (entered 9/15/08)
  • MEMO CONTRA FILED (filed 9/22/08)
  • Consent to Move of Plead (filed 9/26/08)
  • Answer to Cross Claim (filed 9/26/08)
  • MEMO CONTRA FILED (filed 9/29/08)
  • Answer to Complaint (filed 10/3/08)
  • Motion to Dismiss (filed 10/3/08)
  • MOTION TO EXTEND TIME (filed 10/8/08)
  • Memo Contra Motion to Dismiss (filed 10/9/08)
  • Motion to dismiss (filed 10/10/08)
  • Agreed Order (filed 10/10/08)
  • Entry (filed 10/16/08)
  • Letters (filed 10/16/08)
  • Defendant Disclosure of Witnesses (filed 10/17/08)
  • Defendant Disclosure of Witnesses (filed 10/17/08)
  • Motion to extend time (filed 10/17/08)
  • Defendant Disclosure of Witnesses (filed 10/17/08)
  • PLAINTIFF DISCLOSURE OF WITNESSES (filed 10/17/08)
  • REPLY MEMO (filed 10/20/08)
  • CONSENT TO MOVE OR PLEAD (filed 10/24/08)

Commentary

Daniel P. Tokaji

The Supreme Court and the RIght to Vote

Daniel P. Tokaji

For over 130 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has said that the right to vote fundamental. The idea is that voting for candidates who represent our views is the primary means through which we protect our interests, whatever they might be.  Yet ecent events raise serious questions about the currently short-staffed Supreme Court’s capacity to protect the right to vote against 21st Century threats. 

more commentary...

In the News

Daniel P. Tokaji

An Obscure Ohio State Law Could Shake Up the Republican Convention

Professor Dan Tokaji was quoted in an ABC News article about the Republican Convention:

“It’s entirely imaginable that these kind of controversies will emerge if Donald Trump goes into Cleveland without 1,237,” said Dan Tokaji, an expert in election law at the Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University, referring the number of delegates needed to clinch the nomination. “There’s going to be a furious jockeying for these delegates.”

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

6th Circuit Reverses District Court, Rules Against State in Ohio Voter Rolls Case

In an opinion issued today, a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that Ohio\'s procedures for removing voters from registration rolls violates the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act. The case is Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute v. Husted.

more info & analysis...