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

Why the Supreme Court Shouldn’t Intervene in Ohio

Daniel P. Tokaji

Briefing is now in the U.S. Supreme Court on Ohio’s emergency motion to stay the district court injunction restoring the rules regarding same day registration and early voting that existed before legislation enacted earlier this year (SB 238). In a previous post, I explained why the district court and Sixth Circuit panel’s rulings were faithful applications of legal precedent requiring close attention to the context in which restrictions on voting are enacted. This post explains why it would be unwise and disruptive for the Supreme Court to change the rules now – now literally on the eve of an election -- responding to comments that my colleague Ned Foley posted yesterday.

more commentary...

In the News

Daniel P. Tokaji

Ohio treasurer receives OK to host town halls

Professor Daniel Tokaji was quoted in an article from the Associated Press about an attorney general opinion that allows the Ohio treasurer to conduct telephone town halls using public money. The opinion will likely have broad ramifications for the upcoming elections, Tokaji said.

“As a practical matter, while that legal advice is certainly right, very serious concerns can arise about whether these are really intended to inform Ohio constituents about the operations of his office or if they’re campaign events,” he said.

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

SCOTUS Grants Stay in Ohio Early Voting Case

With a 5-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court today granted a stay in NAACP v. Husted. The court's action blocks a district court order issued earlier this month and allows Ohio's shortened early voting period to go into effect.

more info & analysis...