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

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

White House drops Obama-era discrimination claim against Texas voter ID law

Professor Edward Foley was quoted in The Christian Science Monitor in an article about how the Trump administration dropped a discrimination claim against a Texas voter ID law. Viewed as one of the strictest voting requirements in the country by voting rights advocates, the law required voters to show one of seven valid forms of ID.

A federal appeals court ruled last year that the law disproportionately impacted minorities and those living in poverty. The court required the state to adjust its requirements before the general election. According to court testimony, Hispanic voters were twice as likely to lack proper ID under the law, while black voters were three times as likely.

“Voting litigation is increasing, not decreasing,” Foley said. “The main impression … is that when a law looks like it’s engaging in outright disenfranchisement of a valid voter, even conservative judges have been stopping that. [But] the judiciary is more tolerant with state legislatures adjusting issues of convenience and accessibility, if the adjustment is not outright disenfranchisement.”
 

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...