This database consolidates and tracks litigation concerning the effect of the pandemic on election law. The purpose of this tool is to provide an interactive list of relevant cases that can be searched by issue, court, status, and jurisdiction.
Case Details
Ohio Democratic Party v. LaRose
Active
Ohio Democratic Party v. LaRose, No. 20CV005634 (Ohio Ct. Common Pleas, Franklin Cnty.) |
||
| Case Summary | The Ohio Democratic Party and other plaintiffs seek a declarative judgment that Ohio law does not limit counties to one drop box for absentee ballots, nor does it limit their location to county boards of elections, despite the Secretary of State's earlier instruction to the contrary. The plaintiffs also seek a temporary and permanent injunction against the enforcement of the Secretary's one-dropbox-per-county rule. | |
| Filed | 08/25/2020 | |
| State | Ohio | |
| Type of Court | State | |
| Status | Active | |
| Last Updated | 03/04/2021 | |
| Issue Tag(s) | Vote-by-Mail (Other Vote-by-Mail Issue) Authority To Act (State Separation of Powers) Number and location of drop boxes for absentee ballots |
|
| Complaint(s) | 08/25/2020: Complaint filed. | |
| Dispositive Ruling(s) | 09/15/2020: Other, The Court issued a declaratory judgment that the statute was not dispositive on the issue of how many dropboxes each county was required to have to collect absentee ballots, and while the Ohio Secretary of State was allowed to regulate the number of dropboxes under Ohio law, the Secretary's choice to limit each county to a single dropbox was arbitrary and unreasonable, as it forced counties with voting populations nearing 1 million to use the same number of dropboxes as a rural county with only 10,000 voters. | |
| 09/16/2020: Order/Ruling, The Court, based on its declaratory judgment issued the previous day, issued a preliminary injunction at the urging of the Secretary so he could appeal the grant to the Court of Appeals. | ||
Ohio Democratic Party v. LaRose, Nos. 20AP432, 20AP439 (Ohio Ct. App.) |
||
| Case Summary | Prior to Ohio's primary election, and in response to COVID-19, the Ohio legislature passed a law requiring each county to install a drop box at which voters could deposit absentee ballots. The Ohio Secretary of State then issued a directive requiring county election officials to continue using these same drop boxes, and no others, in the general election. The Ohio Democratic Party sued the secretary of state, arguing that the directive violated state statutory law insofar as it prohibited the installation of additional drop boxes. The trial court agreed with the plaintiffs, declaring that the law did not prohibit additional drop boxes, and enjoining the Secretary's directive, but staying the injunction pending appeal. The Ohio Republican Party joined as a defendant-intervnor, and both defendants appealed. Both defendants argued that the trial court had erred in declaring the Secretary's directive unlawful and granting a preliminary injunction, and the Ohio Republican Party additionally argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the directive. | |
| Filed | 09/16/2020 | |
| State | Ohio | |
| Type of Court | State | |
| Status | Active | |
| Last Updated | 03/04/2021 | |
| Issue Tag(s) | Vote-by-Mail (Other Vote-by-Mail Issue) Authority To Act (State Separation of Powers) Failure to create additional drop-boxes for absentee ballots |
|
| Complaint(s) | 09/16/2020: Complaint filed. | |
| Dispositive Ruling(s) | 10/02/2020: Other, The appellate court reversed the trial court's injunction, but affirmed its grant of declaratory relief. R.C. 3509.05 requires the voter (or a close relative) to "deliver" an absentee ballot "to the director." However, it does not define the manner of this delivery. The Secretary interpreted the statute to mean that the ballot must be dropped off at a single drop box at the offices of the county's board of elections. However, the court disagreed with this interpretation, holding that the term "deliver" could apply to multiple drop boxes, and so did not prohibit counties from setting up more than one. Accordingly, the court affirmed the trial court's declaration that the statute did not itsef prohibit counties from installing additional drop boxes. Nevertheless, the court reversed the trial court's injunction, finding that the Secretary of State had the power to prohibit additional drop boxes under more general provisions of Ohio's election laws. Judge Brown concurred in part, but also dissented in part, arguing that the Secretary's interpretation of R.C. 3509.05 was reasonable, and deserved deference. Judge Dorrian also concured in part and dissented in part. Judge Dorrian would have affirmed the trial court's injunction, arguing that the Secretary had no reasonable basis for the directive, because it was based on his erroneous interpretation of R.C. 3509.05. | |
