Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Share

Last Updated: May 16, 2012 at 12:13 PM

LaRoque v. Holder

Case Information

Date Filed: April 7, 2010
State: National
Issue: Voting Rights Act
Current Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (Case 11-5349)

Issue:

Whether Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1964 exceeds Congress' authority under the Fifth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Status:

District Court opinion issued 12/22/11.

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