OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

Van Hollen v. Government Accountability Board

Case Information

Date Filed / Ended: September 10, 2008 / January 23, 2009
State: Wisconsin
Issues: Voter Registration, State Voter Registration Databases
Courts that Heard this Case: Dane County Circuit Court (Case 2008CV004085); Wisconsin Court of Appeals (Case 2008AP002804)

Issue:

Whether the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board (GAB) has met its obligations to bring Wisconsin into compliance with state and federal election laws, including the Help America Vote Act (HAVA).  Specifically, the Attorney General is seeking to require that the GAB run HAVA checks on voter registrations received prior to August 6, 2008.

DISCLOSURE

Status:

Case dismissed by trial court on 10/23/08.  Appeal filed with the Wisconsin Court of Appeals on 11/12/08 (noticed filed in circuit court on 11/7/08). Opinion/Decision that Appeal is Dismissed Pursuan to Rule 809.18 entered on 1/23/09.

Court of Appeals Documents

  • Notice of Appeal & Court Record (filed 11/12/08)
  • ORD that the time for the clerk to transmit the record on appeal is extended to December 29, 2008 (entered 12/10/08)
  • Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Filed (filed 1/21/09)
  • Opinion/Decision that the appeal is dismissed pursuant to Rule 809.18 (entered 1/23/09)
  • Remittitur (entered 1/23/09)

Circuit Court Documents

Related Information

Commentary

Edward B. Foley

Of Bouncing Balls and a Big Blue Shift

Edward B. Foley

It is a fortuitous coincidence that the University of Virginia’s Journal of Law & Politics has just published a piece of mine that shows the relevance of the current vote-counting process in Virginia’s Attorney General election to what might happen if the 2016 presidential election turns on a similar vote-counting process in Virginia. 

Read full post here.

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

U.S. Supreme Court strikes down aggregate campaign contribution cap

The U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion today in McCutcheon v. FEC, striking down aggregate limits on political campaign contributions but leaving in place limits on contributions to individual candidates.

more info & analysis...