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

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

U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Wisconsin Gerrymandering Case

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider a gerrymandering case involving Wisconsin state legislative districts. The court also granted a request by the state to temporarily block the lower court\'s decision until the appeal is resolved. The case is Gill v. Whitford.

more info & analysis...