Last Updated: May 16, 2012 at 12:39 PM
Wilson v. Kasich
Case Information
Date Filed: January 4, 2012
State: Ohio
Issue: Redistricting
Current Court: Supreme Court of Ohio (Case 12-0019)
Issue:
Whether the Ohio Apportionment Board violated Article XI of the Ohio Constitution in its reapportionment of the Ohio General Assembly.
Status:
Complaint filed 1/04/12.
Supreme Court Documents
- Complaint
(filed 1/04/2012) - Affidavit of Dr. McDonald in Support of Complaint (filed 1/04/12)
- Motion for Order Protecting the Court's Jurisdiction (filed 1/13/12)
- Answer of Secretary Husted (filed 1/17/12)
- Evidence of Secretary Husted (filed 1/17/12)
- Answer of Governor Kasich, Senate President Niehaus, and Auditor Yost (filed 1/17/12)
- Evidence of Governor Kasich, Senate President Niehaus, and Auditor Yost
- Volume I (filed 1/17/12)
- Volume II (filed 1/17/12)
- Volume III (filed 1/17/12)
- Volume IV (filed 1/17/12)
- Volume V (filed 1/17/12)
- Volume VI (filed 1/17/12)
- Volume VII (filed 1/17/12)
- Volume I
- Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (filed 1/17/12)
- Notice of Filings of Deposition Transcripts (filed 1/17/12)
- Exhibits to Depositions (filed 1/17/12)
- Exhibits to Depositions
- Filing of Affidavit of Jim Slagle (filed 1/17/12)
- Affidavit of Lloyd Pierre-Louis (filed 1/17/12)
- Appendix of Exhibits 1 (filed 1/17/12)
- Appendix of Exhibits 2 (filed 1/17/12)
- Appendix of Exhibits 1
- Affidavit and Exhibits of Professor of Michael McDonald (filed 1/17/12)
- Motion for Order for Compliance with Privilege Log Requirment (filed 1/17/12)
- Husted's Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Protecting the Court's Jurisdiction (filed 1/19/12)
- Kasich, Neihaus, and Yost's Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Protecting the Court's Jurisdiction (filed 1/19/12)
- Response of Non-Parties Mann and DiRossi to Motion for Order for Compliance with Privilege Log Requirement (filed 1/19/12)
- Response on Behalf of Ohio House to Motion for Order for Compliance with Privilege Log Requirement (filed 1/19/12)
- Merit Brief of Relators (filed 1/23/12)
- Realator's Opposition to Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (filed 1/27/12)
- Secretary of State Husted's Merit Brief (filed 1/30/12)
- Governor John Kasich, Senate President Niehaus, and Auditor Yost's Merit Brief (filed 1/30/12)
- Reply Brief of Relators (filed 2/3/12)
- Letter Dismissing Certain Complaints (filed 2/17/12)
- Order Requesting Supplemental Briefs on Certain Questions (filed 3/2/12)
- Supplemental Merit Brief of Governor Kasich (filed 3/23/12)
- Supplemental Brief of Secretary of State Husted (filed 3/23/12)
- Relator's Supplemental Brief (filed 3/23/12)
- Governor's Brief in Response (filed 3/30/12)
- Relator's Supplemental Reply Brief (filed 3/30/12)
- Realators' Amended Complaint (filed 4/09/12)
- Opposition to Motion for Amended Complaint (filed 4/18/12)
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...