Last Updated: May 16, 2012 at 11:59 AM
South Carolina v. United States
Case Information
Date Filed: February 7, 2012
State: South Carolina
Issues: Voting Rights Act, Voter ID
Current Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Case 1:12-cv-00203)
Issue:
Whether the US Justice Department properly denied preclearance to South Carolina's Voter ID law under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act
Status:
Complaint filed 2/7/12.
District Court Documents
- Complaint
(filed 2/7/12) - Motion to Intervene (filed 2/24/12)
- Attorney General's Response to Motion to Intervene (filed 3/09/12)
- Order Adopting Motion to Intervene (filed 3/20/12)
- Answer of Defendant-Intervenors (filed 3/20/12)
- League of Women Voters' Motion to Intervene (filed 3/27/12)
- Motion to Intervene (filed 3/30/12)
- Order Granting Motion to Intervene (filed 4/04/12)
- Answer to Complaint for Declaratory Judgment (filed 4/04/12)
- Answer to Complaint for Declaratory Judgment (filed 4/04/12)
- Answer of Defendant U.S. (filed 4/09/12)
- Affidavit of Andino (filed 4/10/12)
- Statement of Defendants on Obsticles voters will have on Implementation of Act R54 (filed 4/23/12)
- Notice of South Carolina's Reponse (filed 4/25/12)
- Notice of Final Procedure (filed 4/30/12)
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...