OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

 

Stein v. Cortes

Case Information

Date Filed: December 5, 2016
State: Pennsylvania
Issue: Recount Resources
Courts that Heard this Case: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Case 2:16-cv-06287)

Issue:

The plaintiff brings this action in relation to the difficulty they are facing in gaining a recount in Pennsylvania. The following claims are brought by plaintiff: 

1. Whether the Defendants have are maintaining and implementing a system of voting that denies Pennsylvania voters the right to vote, which has severely burdened voters right to vote in violation of the Equal Protection clause.

2. Whether the Defendants are maintaining and implementing a system that burdens the right to vote and violates Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

3. Whether the Defendants are maintaining and implementing a system that burdens the right to vote and violates the First Amendment.

Status:

Complaint filed 12/5/2016. Motion to Intervene by Trump et al filed 12/5/16. Order setting 12/6/16 deadline for response to Motion to Intervene. Motion for Expedited Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed 12/6/16. Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed 12/6/16. Responses in Opposition filed by Trump et al and Cortes12/8/16. Opinion and Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed 12/12/16.

 

District Court Documents

Commentary

Edward B. Foley

A Special Master for the Cohen Case?

Edward B. Foley

There should be a strong presumption against special treatment just because the president is involved. 

more commentary...

In the News

Edward B. Foley

Yes, American democracy is in peril — but don’t blame the bots

A post written by Prof. Edward Foley for SCOTUSblog about Justice Anthony Kennedy’s jurisprudence on voting rights was quoted in Salon.

 

“For Kennedy, freedom comes first and democracy second, and … the purpose of democracy is to preserve and promote personal liberty,” Foley writes. 

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Supreme Court Upholds Most Texas Districts in Racial Gerrymandering Case

In a 5-4 decision that reversed the ruling of the District Court, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the drawing of most of the disputed Texas districts did not violate the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act. The case is Abbott v. Perez.

more info & analysis...