Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Share

Last Updated: May 16, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Favors v. Cuomo

Case Information

Date Filed: November 17, 2011
State: New York
Issue: Redistricting
Current Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Case 1:11-cv-05632 )

Issue:

Whether New York's redistricting procedure violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment, among other provisions.

Status:

Complaint filed 11/17/11.

District Court Documents

Complaint (filed 11/17/11)
Letter Requesting a Three Judge Panel (filed 12/02/11)
Notice of Certain Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint (filed 12/12/11)
Motion to Intervene (filed 12/19/11)
Plaintiffs' Letter to Judge Regarding Motion to Dismiss (filed 12/27/11)
Plaintiffs' Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Defendant Schneiderman (filed 12/28/11)
Motion to Intervene by Asian American Citizens (filed 12/28/11)
Memorandum in Support of Motion to Intervene (filed 12/28/11)
Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Kolb (filed 12/28/11)
Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Oaks (filed 12/28/11)
Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (filed 12/29/12)
Plaintiffs' Declaration in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (filed 12/29/12)
Certain Defendants' Response to Motion to Intervene (filed 1/06/12)
Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss (filed 1/09/12)
Declaration Regarding Other Cases (filed 1/09/12)
Certain Defendants' Response to Motion to Intervene by Ramos (filed 1/13/12)
Certain Defendants' Response to Motion to Intervene by Lee (filed 1/13/12)
Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (filed 1/17/12)
Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants Sampson and Dilan's Motion to Dismiss (filed 1/17/12)
Affidavit of Dilan in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (filed 1/17/12)
Notification of Actions in Similar Case (filed 1/30/12)
Notification of Dismissal of Counts V and VI (filed 1/30/12)
Letter Responding to Notification of Actions in Similar Case (filed 1/31/12)
Letter Regarding Primary Date (filed 2/10/12)
Motion to Intervene (filed 2/15/12)
Memorandum of Law in Support of Appointment of Special Master (filed 2/17/12)
Declaration of Daniel Burstein (filed 2/17/12)
Certain Defendants' Response to Motion to Intervene (filed 2/17/12)
Letter Regarding Redistricting Plan (filed 2/29/12)
Letter Regarding Redistricting Plan (filed 2/29/12)
Letter Regarding Redistricting Plan (filed 2/29/12)
Letter Regarding Redistricting Plan (filed 2/29/12)
Letter Regarding Redistricting Plan (filed 2/29/12)
Declaration of Andrew Beveridge, Ph.D. (filed 2/29/12)
Memorandum on Proposed Map (filed 2/29/12)
Ramos' Proposed Redistricting Map (filed 2/29/12)
First Redistricting Map (filed 3/01/12)
Second Redistricting Map (filed 3/01/12)
Third Redistricting Map (filed 3/01/12)
Assembly Majority's Memo Regarding Plan (filed 3/01/12)
William Farr's Memorandum of Law in Response to Parties' Proposed Redistricting Plans (filed 3/01/12)
Lee Intervenor's Response (filed 3/02/12)
Defendant Skelos' Response (filed 3/02/12)
Rose Intervenors' Response (filed 3/02/12)
Minority Leader Brian Kolb's Response (filed 3/02/12)
Ramos Intervenor's Response (filed 3/02/12)
Drayton's Response (filed 3/03/12)
Second Declaration of Andrew Beveridge (filed 3/03/12)
Expert Testimony of Simmons (filed 3/05/12)
Expert Testimony of Ansolabehere (filed 3/05/12)
Rose Interveners' Brief Regarding Redistricting Plan (filed 3/07/12)
Skelos' Response Regarding Redistricting (filed 3/07/12)
Governor Cuomo's Answer to Complaint (filed 3/07/12)
Speaker Silver's Answer to Complaint (filed 3/07/12)
Minority Leader Sampson Answer to Complaint (filed 3/07/12)
Robert Oaks' Answer to Complaint (filed 3/07/12)
Minority Leader Kolb's Answer to Complaint (filed 3/07/12)
Defendant Skelos' Answer to Complaint (filed 3/07/12)
Order Denying Motion to Dismiss (filed 3/08/12)
Report and Recommendation (filed 3/12/12)
Ramos-Intervenors' Response to Judge's Redistricting Plan (filed 3/14/12)
Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Adoption of Report and Opposition (filed 3/14/12)
Senate Majority Defendant's Opposition to Magistrate Judge's Report (filed 3/14/12)
Non-party in Submission in Response to Report (filed 3/15/12)
Letter Regarding Update on Legislation (filed 3/15/12)
Non-Party Submissions in Response to Report and Recommendations (filed 3/19/12)
Complaint of Intervenors (filed 3/19/12)
Order Adopting Report and Recommendations (filed 3/19/12)
Motion to Intervene (filed 3/20/12)
Amended Complaint of Plaintiff-Intervenor Ullmnan (filed 3/27/12)
Amended Complaint of Plaintiff-Intervenor Drayton (filed 3/27/12)
Amended Complaint of Plaintiff-Intervenor Ramos (filed 3/27/12)
Amended Complaint of Plaintiff-Intervenor Lee (filed 3/27/12)
Amended Complaint of Plaintiff Favors (filed 3/27/12)
Letter Regarding Voting Rights Act (filed 3/28/12)
Answer to Amended Complaint of Ullman (filed 4/02/12)
Answer to Amended Complaint of Ramos (filed 4/02/12)
Answer to Amended Complaint of Lee (filed 4/02/12)
Answer to Amended Complaint of Plaintiff (filed 4/02/12)
Senate Majority's Motion to Dismiss (filed 4/02/12)
Answer to Amended Complaint of Drayton (filed 4/02/12)
Motion to Dismiss Ullman's Amended Complaint (filed 4/02/12)
Documents From Related Case (filed 4/03/12)
Drayton's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (filed 4/09/12)
Senate Minority's Response to Motion to Dismiss (filed 4/09/12)
Declaration of Eric Hecker (filed 4/09/12)
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (filed 4/09/12)
Ullman's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (filed 4/09/12)
Lee's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (filed 4/09/12)
Skelos' Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (filed 4/09/12)
The Senate Minority Response (filed 4/12/12)
Letter From Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (filed 4/12/12)
Ramos' Motion for Preliminary Judgment (filed 4/12/12)
Drayton's Motion for Preliminary Judgment (filed 4/12/12)
Declaration of McLaughlin (filed 4/12/12)
Motion to Intervene (filed 4/13/12)
Opinion in Cohan v. Cuomo (filed 4/13/12)
Answer to Complaint (filed 4/16/12)
Supplemental Response to Court's Order (filed 4/17/12)
Senate Majority's Response to Plaintiffs' Submissions (filed 4/17/12)
Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction (filed 4/17/12)
Declaration of Todd Geremia (filed 4/17/12)
Objection to Drayton's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (filed 4/17/12)
Declaration of Breitbart (filed 4/26/12)
Declaration of Gibbs (filed 4/27/12)
Declaration of Beveridge (filed 4/27/12)
Declaration of Apotheker (filed 4/27/12)
Declaration of Geremia (filed 4/27/12)
Ramos' Memo is Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction (filed 4/27/12)
Response to Court Order (filed 4/30/12)
Motion to Amend (filed 5/1/12)
Motion to Intervene (filed 5/1/12)
Answer to Amended Complaint (filed 5/2/12)
Response to Apotheker (filed 5/4/12)
Response to Geremia (filed 5/4/12)
Memorandum Regarding Privilege Issues (filed 5/4/12)
Opposition to Breitbart's Motion to Intervene (filed 5/4/12)
Senate Majority's Response to Show Cause Order (filed 5/4/12)
Response of Lee Intervenors to Court's April 20 Order (filed 5/4/12)
Letter in Response to Opposition to Intervention (filed 5/8/12)
Letter Regarding Preclearance (filed 5/15/12)

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...

In the News

New Share Class Gives Google Founders Tighter Control

Professor Steven Davidoff, writing as the Deal Professor for The New York Times DealBook, wrote a column about Google's new share class. The tech company created a nonvoting share class in order to give its founders tighter control of the company. They did this, they said, in order to "focus on the long term."

Davidoff said this could create a pattern: "In the meantime, one thing is certain. The clear trend in technology companies is to deny shareholders this choice and a real vote. In other words, expect more Google followers."

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Niehaus and Blessing File Notice of Dismissal in Ohio Supreme Court

In accordance with Judge Marbley's order issued orally late yesterday in the NEOCH v. Husted case, Ohio legislators Thomas Niehaus and Louis Blessing have filed a notice of dismissal without prejudice of their mandamus action in the Ohio Supreme Court.

more info & analysis...

Major Pending Cases

more litigation...

Election Law @ Moritz | The Ohio State University Michael E. Moritz College of Law | electionlaw@osu.edu

Please note: Election Law @ Moritz is nonpartisan and does not endorse, support, or oppose any candidate, campaign, or party. Opinions expressed by individuals associated with Election Law @ Moritz, either on this web site or in connection with conferences or other activities undertaken by the program, represent solely the views of the individuals offering the opinions and not the program itself. Election Law @ Moritz institutionally does not represent any clients or participate in any litigation. Individuals affiliated with the program may in their own personal capacity participate in campaign or election activity, or engage in pro bono representation of clients other than partisan candidates or organizations.

PDF files in this site require Adobe Reader to view (link opens in NEW window). If you have trouble accessing this page or need to request an alternate format, please email the Moritz Law Webmaster.

OSU Navigation Bar