Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Share

Last Updated: September 10, 2010 at 1:39 PM

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 (filed 5/30/08)
- Exhibit A
- Exhibits B-M
- Exhibits N-Q
Answer and Counterclaim (filed 6/5/08)
Answer and Counterclaim of Cuyahoga County, et al. (filed 7/15/08)
Crossclaim and First Amended Counterclaim (filed 8/6/08)
Answer and Crossclaim (Guernsey County) (filed 8/27/08)
Answer and Motion for Misjoinder (Montgomery County) (filed 8/27/08)
Answer to Crossclaim (Butler County) (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 (Miami County) (filed 9/10/08)
Answer to Counterclaim (Cuyahoga County) (filed 9/10/08)
Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss (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

FAQ on social welfare organizations

Donald B. Tobin

The Frank E. and Virginia H. Bazler Designated Professor in Business Law and a senior fellow at Election Law @ Moritz explains the nuances of social welfare organizations and federal regulations related to them.

more commentary...

In the News

How Did The IRS Get The Job Of Vetting Political Activity?

Professor Donald Tobin was interviewed by the Boston NPR station on its show Here & Now about the Internal Revenue Service's investigation into groups classified as social welfare organizations (marked by the 501(c)(4) tax classification). The IRS was in search of groups that are not focusing primarly on the social welfare of the country, but have a strong political advocacy facet. Political advocacy groups might want to be classified as 501(c)(4) organizations because under that classification they do not have to disclose their donors.

"The key is if you are going to be engaged in candidate-type advocacy, and if you're going to intervene in elections and engage in election advocacy, we want disclosure of who your donors are," Tobin said.

“What groups are trying to do here is avoid having to disclose,” Tobin continued. “By earning the classification of social welfare, they’re avoiding the campaign disclosure that’s required for political organizations. So that’s really the underpinning of why we have this mess of the IRS having to get in and investigate and figure out whether an organization is political or not.”

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Ohio Secretary of State Releases Report on Voter Fraud

Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted released a report today on voter fraud in Ohio during the 2012 general election. In a press release, Husted stated that while voter fraud does exist in Ohio, "it is not an epidemic." According to the report, 135 voter fraud cases have been referred to law enforcement for possible prosecution. Twenty of these cases involved voters attempting to vote in Ohio and another state. The report shows that 115 cases were referred to local Ohio county prosecutors. According to Husted as quoted in the Columbus Dispatch, most of these cases involved voters attempting to vote twice within the state, and in a "majority" of instances, only one vote was counted.

more info & analysis...

Major Pending Cases

more litigation...

Election Law @ Moritz | The Ohio State University Michael E. Moritz College of Law | 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. Individuals affiliated with the program may in their own personal capacity participate in campaign or election activity, or engage in pro bono representation of clients other than partisan candidates or organizations.

PDF files in this site require Adobe Reader to view (link opens in NEW window). If you have trouble accessing this page or need to request an alternate format, please email the Moritz Law Webmaster.

OSU Navigation Bar