Last Updated: January 8, 2013 at 11:28 AM
Townley v. Miller
Case Information
Date Filed: June 8, 2012
State: Nevada
Issue: Ballot Design
Current Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (Case 12-16882 )
Issue:
Whether Nevada state law, which allows voters to choose "none of the above" as a ballot option, but then requires that those ballots not be counted, is Constitutional.
Status:
Complaint filed 6/8/12. Appeal to 9th Circuit filed 8/24/12. Order Granting Emergency Motion for Stay Pending appeal issued 9/5/12. Appellants' briefs filed 9/24/12. Appellees' Brief filed 11/5/12. Appellants' Reply Brief filed 12/3/12. Set for oral argument 3/11/13.
Circuit Court Documents
- Emergency Motion for Stay of Order Granting Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal
(filed 8/30/12) - Appellees-Plaintiffs' Opposition to Emergency Motion for Stay (filed 8/31/12)
- Order Granting Emergency Motion to Stay Pending Appeal (filed 9/5/12)
- Opening Brief of Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant (filed 9/24/12)
- Defendant-Appellant's Opening Brief (filed 9/24/12)
- Motion for Joinder of Republican Party of Nevada (filed 10/24/12)
- Confirmation of Extension of Time to File Brief (filed 10/24/12)
- Non-Opposition to Joinder of Republican Party of Nevada (filed 10/24/12)
- Appellees' Brief (filed 11/5/12)
- Order Granting Motion for Joinder of Republican Party of Nevada (filed 11/24/12)
- Defendant-Appellant's Reply Brief (filed 12/3/12)
- Notice of Oral argument on March 11, 2013 (filed 1/7/13)
District Court Documents
- Complaint (filed 6/8/12)
- Amended Complaint (filed 6/20/12)
- Motion for Preliminary Injunction (filed 6/28/12)
- Memorandum in Support (filed 6/28/12)
- Memorandum in Support
- Answer to Amended Complaint (filed 7/2/12)
- Motion to Dismiss (filed 7/2/12)
- Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (filed 7/9/12)
- Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction (filed 7/12/12)
- Motion for Intervention (filed 7/13/12)
- Intervenor's Proposed Response to Motion for Preliminary Injunction (filed 7/13/12)
- Intervenor-Defendant's Proposed Answer (filed 7/13/12)
- Defendant's Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss (filed 7/19/12)
- Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion for Intervention (filed 7/30/12)
- Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction (filed 7/30/12)
- Reply in Support of Motion for Intervention (filed 8/6/12)
- Notice of Appeal of Preliminary Injunction (filed 8/24/12)
- Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs' Preliminary Injunction (filed 8/28/12)
- Defendants' Emergency Motion for Clarification or Modification of Order (filed 9/4/12)
- Order Granting Stay Pending Appeal (filed 9/5/12)
- Order Denying as Moot Motion for Clarification (filed 9/5/12)
Commentary
Silence of the Lambs
Dale A. Oesterle
With the election of 2012 now well over and past the second inauguration of the incumbent President, the historical analysis of the events has begun and will last as long as written human history lasts. An interesting tidbit may already be lost to the majesty of the moment.
The voters of three very different states, Alaska, New Hampshire, and Ohio, all had an opportunity to call state constitutional conventions. In each state the voters turned the opportunity down by very similar votes, 68%, 64% and 68% respectively against.
more commentary...