OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

 

Share

Last Updated: May 20, 2013 at 10:35 AM

NEOCH v. Husted

Case Information

Date Filed: October 24, 2006
State: Ohio
Issues: Voter ID, Provisional Ballots
Current Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit (Case 12-4354)

Issue:

Original Issues: (1) Whether Ohio's voter ID laws are unconstitutional as "confusing, vague, and impossible to apply" in violation of the right to vote; whether the laws are unconstitutional because they apply only to in-person voters and not to absentee voters; whether they are unconstitutional because they may bar voters who do not have required identification from voting on Election Day; whether they are unconstitutional because only some forms of ID must have current address; whether they are unconstitutional as a poll tax. (2) Whether Ohio's provisional-ballot laws are unconstitutionally vague and therefore violate Equal Protection and Due Process.

Current Issue: Whether an April 2010 Consent Decree requiring that provisional ballots improperly voted as a result of poll worker error still be counted is valid under Ohio law.

Status:

First Brief of Appellant for 11-3035/ 11-3036 filed 3/25/11.  Appellant's Brief filed 3/30/11.  Letter Allowing for Filing of Brief Instanter by Ohio Attorney General's Office filed 3/31/11.  Appellee's Brief filed 4/27/11. Related Ohio Supreme Court action dismissed 5/11/12. Oral argument on validity of Consent Decree held 6/27/12. Opinion and Order Upholding the Consent Decree filed 7/9/12. Notice of Appeal filed 7/19/12. Appellant's briefs filed 8/20/12. Plenary Opinion and Order issued 8/27/12. NEOCH's appellate brief filed 9/4/12. Husted's reply brief filed 9/10/12. Oral argument calendar filed 9/17/12. Oral argument held 10/1/12. 6th Circuit Opinion issued 10/11/12. District Court opinion on remand announced from bench 10/24/12 - written opinion will follow. Written opinion and order denying plaintiffs' motion to modify consent decree and granting defendants' motion to modify consent decree filed 10/26/12. Emergency motion to clarify scope of 2010 consent decree filed 11/1/12. Order for expedited briefing schedule filed 11/2/12. Plaintiffs' Joint Notice of Husted's Directive filed 11/2/12. State's memorandum in Opposition filed 11/6/12. Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion filed 11/13/12. Notice of Appeal filed 11/13/12. Motion for Emergency Stay filed 11/14/12. Motion for Stay Granted 11/16/12. Revised Briefing Schedule filed 1/7/13. Briefing Scheduled Extended 5/15/13.

Related Cases: State ex rel. Skaggs v. Brunner, SEIU v. Husted

Consolidated Case: Ohio Republican Party v. Brunner

Disclosure: EL@M Senior Fellow Daniel Tokaji is one of the attorneys representing amici League of Women Voters of Ohio and Common Cause of Ohio in this case. No EL@M member who participates in any lawsuit covered on the EL@M website is involved in generating the website's information or analysis on that lawsuit.

District Court Documents

Court of Appeals Documents (on counting 2012 provisional ballots)

Court of Appeals Documents (on denial of motion to vacate consent decree)

Court of Appeals Documents (on appeal of Attorneys' Fees Award)

State of Ohio's Attempt to Intervene

Secretary of State's Appeal to the Sixth Circuit [Filed by Ohio Attorney General without the Secretary of State's participation]

Related Links

Related EL@M Stories

News Stories

Commentaries

Commentary

Donald B. Tobin

FAQ on social welfare organizations

Donald B. Tobin

The Frank E. and Virginia H. Bazler Designated Professor in Business Law and a senior fellow at Election Law @ Moritz explains the nuances of social welfare organizations and federal regulations related to them.

more commentary...

In the News

Donald B. Tobin

How Did The IRS Get The Job Of Vetting Political Activity?

Professor Donald Tobin was interviewed by the Boston NPR station on its show Here & Now about the Internal Revenue Service's investigation into groups classified as social welfare organizations (marked by the 501(c)(4) tax classification). The IRS was in search of groups that are not focusing primarly on the social welfare of the country, but have a strong political advocacy facet. Political advocacy groups might want to be classified as 501(c)(4) organizations because under that classification they do not have to disclose their donors.

"The key is if you are going to be engaged in candidate-type advocacy, and if you're going to intervene in elections and engage in election advocacy, we want disclosure of who your donors are," Tobin said.

“What groups are trying to do here is avoid having to disclose,” Tobin continued. “By earning the classification of social welfare, they’re avoiding the campaign disclosure that’s required for political organizations. So that’s really the underpinning of why we have this mess of the IRS having to get in and investigate and figure out whether an organization is political or not.”

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Ohio Secretary of State Releases Report on Voter Fraud

Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted released a report today on voter fraud in Ohio during the 2012 general election. In a press release, Husted stated that while voter fraud does exist in Ohio, "it is not an epidemic." According to the report, 135 voter fraud cases have been referred to law enforcement for possible prosecution. Twenty of these cases involved voters attempting to vote in Ohio and another state. The report shows that 115 cases were referred to local Ohio county prosecutors. According to Husted as quoted in the Columbus Dispatch, most of these cases involved voters attempting to vote twice within the state, and in a "majority" of instances, only one vote was counted.

more info & analysis...

Major Pending Cases

more litigation...