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

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 Affirms District Court: NC Redistricting Unconstitutional

In a 5-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the District Court, finding that North Carolina\'s Congressional redistricting plan violated the U.S. Constitution. The Court determined that racial considerations unlawfully predominated the designing of the contested districts. The case is Cooper v. Harris.

more info & analysis...