OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

 

Applewhite v. Pennsylvania

Case Information

Date Filed: May 1, 2012
State: Pennsylvania
Issue: Voter ID
Courts that Heard this Case: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (Case 330 MD 2012); Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Case 71 MAP 2012)

Issue:

Whether Pennsylvania's newly passed state voter ID law violates the Pennsylvania Constitution and whether or not the law can go into effect for the 2012 general election.

Status:

Petition for Review filed 5/1/12. Trial scheduled for 7/25/12. Motion for preliminary injunction denied 8/15/12. Notice of Appeal to Supreme Court of Pennsylvania filed 8/16/12. Order granting motion to expedite and setting briefing schedule filed 8/23/12. Oral argument set for 9/13/12. Appellant's brief filed 8/30/12. Appellee's briefs filed 9/7/12. Order Vacating Judgment and Remanding Case filed 9/18/12. Opinion and Order Granting Preliminary Injunction filed 10/2/12. Trial on Permanent Injunction scheduled for July 2013. Joint stipulation that preliminary injunction will continue through May primary election filed 2/14/13. Preliminary injunction granted 8/16/13. Respondent's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law filed 8/30/13. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law filed 8/30/13. Opinion and order granting permanent injunction filed 1/17/14. Respondent's Application for Hearing before En Banc Panel filed 2/3/14. Petitioners' Opposition to Respondents' Application for Hearing before En Banc Panel filed 2/6/14. Petitioners' Brief filed 2//28/14. Order Denying Application for Relief filed on 3/11/14. Opinion and Order Denying Respondents' Post-Trial Motion filed 4/28/14. Governor Corbett declines to appeal, announced 5/8/14.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Documents

Commonwealth Court Documents

Related News

Commentary

Daniel P. Tokaji

The Supreme Court and the RIght to Vote

Daniel P. Tokaji

For over 130 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has said that the right to vote fundamental. The idea is that voting for candidates who represent our views is the primary means through which we protect our interests, whatever they might be.  Yet ecent events raise serious questions about the currently short-staffed Supreme Court’s capacity to protect the right to vote against 21st Century threats. 

more commentary...

In the News

Daniel P. Tokaji

An Obscure Ohio State Law Could Shake Up the Republican Convention

Professor Dan Tokaji was quoted in an ABC News article about the Republican Convention:

“It’s entirely imaginable that these kind of controversies will emerge if Donald Trump goes into Cleveland without 1,237,” said Dan Tokaji, an expert in election law at the Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University, referring the number of delegates needed to clinch the nomination. “There’s going to be a furious jockeying for these delegates.”

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

6th Circuit Reverses District Court, Rules Against State in Ohio Voter Rolls Case

In an opinion issued today, a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that Ohio\'s procedures for removing voters from registration rolls violates the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act. The case is Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute v. Husted.

more info & analysis...