OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

 

Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Husted

Case Information

Date Filed: September 25, 2013
State: Ohio
Issue: Ballot Access
Courts that Heard this Case: Southern District of Ohio (Case 2:13-CV-00953); United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Case 14-03030); United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Case 14-3230); United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Case 16-3537)

Issue:

Issue 1:

Does Secretary Husted's enforcement of residency requirements for circulators of candidates' nominating petitions  violate the First Amendment?

Issue 2:

Does Secretary Husted's enforcement of residency requirements for circulators of candidates' nominating petitions, as applied,  violate the First Amendment?

Status:

Opinion and Order Granting Summary Judgment to Defendant issued 3/16/15. Opinion and Order finding Ohio minor party ballot access law constitutional filed 10/16/15. Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count 7 by Defendant Husted on 10/30/15. Opinion and order on discovery issues filed 2/5/16. Opinion and order granting summary judgment to defendant filed 5/20/16. Notice of Appeal filed 5/20/16. Appellant's brief filed 6/21/16. State's Appellee brief filed 7/7/16. Gregory Felsoci's Appellee brief filed 7/7/16. Appellant's reply brief filed 7/11/16. Opinion and Judgment affirming District Court filed 7/29/16. Motion to Stay Judgment filed 8/1/16. 6th Circuit Order Denying Motion for Stay filed 8/22/16. Application for Stay and Emergency Injunction filed in U.S. Supreme Court 8/23/16. Order Denying Stay filed 8/29/16.

District Court Documents

Court of Appeals Documents

Court of Appeals Documents (as to denial of TRO)

 

Court of Appeals Documents (Third Appeal)

 

Court of Appeals Documents (Subsequent Appeal)

 

U.S. Supreme Court Documents

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

Trump Calls for Voter Fraud Probe: A Look at Past Inquiries

Professor Edward Foley was quoted in Voice of America about President Donald Trump’s plans to launch a “major investigation” into voter fraud. Trump claims he lost the popular vote because as many as 5 million non-U.S. citizens may have voted illegally.

“As I understand the latest allegations, somewhere between 3 to 5 million improper ballots were cast this past November nationwide, which Trump claims accounts for why Hillary Clinton won the popular vote,” Foley said. “Even if there were 3 to 5 million invalid votes nationwide, we can’t jump to the conclusion that the election result was tainted, because we don’t know who they voted for.”

The odds of a non-U.S. citizen successfully casting a ballot are “extremely low, extraordinarily low,” according to Foley. Instances in which invalid ballots are cast or when voters’ names appear on multiple state voter rolls also don’t necessarily indicate voter fraud either, he added.

“Just because a ballot was cast that was invalid, which is a problem, doesn’t necessarily mean there was a conspiracy to commit voter fraud,” Foley said. “Fraud is a pejorative term that implies intentional deception and manipulation, as opposed to there being mistakes in voter registration lists.”
 


 

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

U.S. District Judge Rules that Ohio Voter Services Website Violates ADA

A U.S. District Judge issued an opinion finding that the Ohio Secretary of State\'s voter services website violates Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act because it is not accessible to visually impaired Ohio voters. Judge George C. Smith ordered Secretary of State John Husted to make the site more accessible by September 29, 2017. As discussed in the opinion, the information on the voter services site does not meet established standards of accessibility for visually impaired voters who use screen reading software. The case is Hindel v. Husted.

more info & analysis...