Last Updated: April 10, 2012 at 11:55 AM
Banfield v. Cortes
Case Information
Date Filed: August 15, 2006
State: Pennsylvania
Issue: Voting Technology
Current Court: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (Case No. 442 MD 2006)
Issue:
Whether Pennsylvania’s use of DREs (direct recording electronic voting machines) violates Pennsylvania or federal law; whether the Secretary of the Commonwealth is required to re-examine the electronic voting system at request of electors.
Status:
Motions for Summary Judgment filed 8/8/11 by both Petitioner and Respondent.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Documents
- Petition for Permission to Appeal (filed 5/10/07) [Not available]
- Brief in Opposition (filed 5/24/07) [Not available]
- Order Denying Permission to Appeal
(filed 12/16/07)
Commonwealth Court Documents
- Petition for Review (filed 8/15/06)
- Opinion (entered 4/12/07)
- Application for Stay and Supersedeas of Proceedings (filed 4/20/07)
- Application to Amend the 4/12/07 Order to Allow Interlocutory Appeal by Respondent (filed 4/20/07)
- Petitioners' Opposition to Respondents' Application for Relief (filed 4/27/07)
- Order Granting Application to Amend (entered 4/30/07)
- Application for Stay of proceedings pending appeal of this Courts 4/12/2007 Order (filed 5/8/07)
- Application for Relief from Paragraph 4 of this Court's April 30, 2007 Order ( filed 5/10/07)
- Order Granting Application for Stay (entered 5/11/07)
- Motion to Dissolve Voluntary Stay of Proceedings and for an Expedited Hearing and Memorandum of Law (filed 1/25/08)
- Petition for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum of Law (filed 1/25/08)
- Answer to Application for Relief (filed 1/30/08)
- Memorandum of Law Filed in Opposition to Petitioners' Motion to Dissolve Stay of Proceedings (1/30/08)
- Petitioner's Reply Brief Filed in further support of their motion to dissolve the stay of proceedings (1/31/08)
- Application to Strike and Memorandum in Support (2/6/08)
- Motion for Pre-hearing summary denial of preliminary injunction and Memorandum in Support (2/6/08)
- Answer to Petition for Preliminary Injunction (2/6/08)
- Order Regarding Petition for Preliminary Injunction Other Disposition (2/8/08)
- Motion to Dissolve Voluntary Stay of Proceedings and to set a Discovery and Trial Schedule (2/22/08)
- Memorandum of Law in opposition to Petitioners' Motion to Dissolve Stay of Proceedings (3/7/08)
- Answer to Petitioners' Motion to Dissolve Stay of Proceedings (3/7/08)
- Argument Scheduled: 4/1/08 (3/10/08)
- Petitioner's Reply Brief (filed 3/14/08)
- Order Denying Application for Relief: The motion to dissolve voluntary stay is DENIED (entered 4/4/08)
- Answer and New Matter (filed 1/15/09)
- Answer to New Matter (filed 2/25/09)
- Application for Relief (filed 4/8/09)
- Order granting Application for Relief (filed 4/13/09)
- Petitioners' Motion for Permanent Judge (filed 10/02/09)
- PA's Memorandum in Support of Motion to Quash Subpoena and for Protective Order (filed 10/2/09)
- Petitioners' Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Quash (filed 10/2/09)
- Answer to Motion to Quash (filed 11/20/09)
- Petitioner's Brief (filed 11/30/09)
- Order Granting Request to Intervene (entered 12/15/09)
- Notice of Appeal to PA Supreme Court (filed 12/28/09)
- Second Amended Pre-Trial Order (filed 5/11/10)
- Third Amended Pre-Trial Order (filed 5/27/10)
- Petitioner's Brief Filed (filed 7/15/11)
- Motion to Compel Production of Documents (filed 7/28/11)
- Motions for Summary Judgment for both Petitioners and Respondents (filed 8/8/11)
- Argument and Briefing Schedule (entered 8/17/11)
- Petitioners' Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment Motion (filed 9/15/11)
- Notice of Argument (filed 10/12/11)
- Respondent's Memorandum in Opposition to Petitioner's Summary Judgment Motion (filed 10/14/11)
- Petitioner's Reply to Respondent's Memorandum (filed 11/2/11)
Related Links
- Counties with Electronic Voting Machines Affected by Lawsuit , VoterAction.org
Related News Articles
- PA Court Issues Ruling in Voting Machine Case (April 13, 2007)
- Court Recognizes Pennsylvania Voters’ Right to Reliable, Secure Voting Machines , Drinker Biddle Press Release, April 12, 2007
Commentary
Provisional Ballots, Consent Decrees, and the Balance Between the Federal and State Governments
Owen Wolfe
A recent mandamus action filed by the Ohio Senate President and House Speaker Pro Tempore to require the Ohio Secretary of State to rescind directives issued in response to a consent decree issued in a federal case dealing with counting provisional ballots raises questions about the mechanics of state election law, the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the relationship between federal and state courts, the law of consent decrees, and more. I have attempted in this article to grapple with these issues in a fair and unbiased manner. Given the complexity of this problem, however, these matters are open to a variety of interpretations and this is just one approach. I hope, however, that this article can provide a useful starting point for a discussion about the future of provisional voting in Ohio and in the nation at large.
This paper is a first look by a student member of the Election Law @ Moritz team and reflects one possible perspective on the issue. Stay tuned, as more analysis from the team will follow as the litigation develops. Owen Wolfe is affiliated with the Ohio Democratic Party and the Obama ’12 campaign, but is not in any way associated with any litigation team working on this case. EL@M has posted the document because we believe it has public value and adds to the discourse on this topic.
more commentary...