OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz



Obama for America v. Husted

Case Information

Date Filed: July 17, 2012
State: Ohio
Issue: Early Voting
Courts that Heard this Case: United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Case 2:12cv00636); United States 6th Circuit Court of Appeals (Case 12-4055); United States Supreme Court (Case 12A338)


Whether Ohio's current election law, which restricts early voting in the three days prior to an election on certain voters, violates 42 USCA 1983 and/or the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.


Complaint filed 7/17/12. Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed 7/17/12. Motion to Intervene Granted 8/6/12. Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction held 8/15/12. Opinion and Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed 8/31/12. Notice of Appeal of Preliminary Injunction filed 9/4/12. Motion to Enforce Court's Order filed 9/5/12. Hearing on Motion set for 9/13/12. Hearing set for 9/13/12 vacated. Appellants' brief filed 9/10/12. Appellees' brief filed 9/17/12. Reply Brief filed 9/21/12. Opinion affirming district court filed 10/5/12. Application for stay filed in Supreme Court 10/9/12. Reply Brief filed 10/13/12. Stay denied 10/16/12. Answer filed 12/3/12. Status Conference scheduled held 3/18/14. Dispositive motions due 5/1/14. Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment filed 5/1/14. Defendants' Response to Motion for Summary Judgment filed 5/9/14. Opinion and Order Granting Permanent Injunctive Relief to Plaintiffs filed 6/11/14.

District Court Documents

Court of Appeals Documents

Supreme Court Documents




Edward B. Foley

The Constitution Needed a Judicial Assist

Edward B. Foley

“The majority contends that its counterintuitive reading of ‘the Legislature’ is necessary to advance the ‘animating principle’ of popular sovereignty.” With this sentence in his dissent (at page 14), Chief Justice Roberts gets to the heart of the debate in today’s 5-4 decision in the Arizona redistricting case.

more commentary...

In the News

David  Stebenne

Can Kasich win all 88 Ohio counties?

Professor David Stebenne was quoted in an Ohio Watchdog article about the possibility of Governor John Kasich winning all 88 Ohio counties in his re-election bid.

“It’s really hard to do,” he said. “As popular as the governor is and as weak as his opponent is, I doubt he’ll carry all 88 (counties).”

Stebenne said Ohio has some unusual counties, which tend to be really Democratic or really Republican.

He said a good example was the election of 1956, when President Dwight Eisenhower carried 87 of 88 Ohio counties.

“He lost one of the Appalachian counties — a poor county where the residents tend to vote Democratic no matter what,” Stebenne said. “There was even some humorous discussion in the Oval Office about that one county.”

Glenn and Voinovich were “the two most popular candidates in modern history,” he added, “and they each only did it once. While Kasich is popular, he really doesn’t have the broad appeal that these two did.”

Stebenne said that both Voinovich and Kasich come from communities that tend to be more Democratic in voter registration, but that Kasich’s first race for governor was more divisive than the races for Voinovich.

“Voinovich had electoral success in Cleveland and as governor because he was able to persuade Democrats to vote Republican,” he said. “Glenn had national appeal across party lines.”

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Fifth Circuit Affirms that Texas Voter ID Law Violates Voting Rights Act

Today, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals issued its opinion in the Texas voter ID case of Veasey v. Abbott, affirming in part and reversing in part the District Court\'s decision. The Fifth Circuit disagreed that Texas\' voter ID law is a poll tax under the 14th and 24th Amendments. The Court also vacated the District Court\'s judgment that the law was passed with a racially discriminatory purpose, remanding the case for a determination using the proper legal standard and evidence. However, the Court agreed that the law violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act due to its discriminatory effect. The Fifth Circuit remanded the case for the District Court to determine the appropriate remedy.

more info & analysis...