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 II
Closed
Ohio Democratic Party v. LaRose, No. 20CV004997 (Ohio Ct. Common Pleas, Franklin Cnty.), No. 20AP421 (Ohio Ct. App.), No. 20CV004997 (Ohio Ct. Common Pleas), stay granted, No. 20AP421 (Ohio Ct. App.) |
||
| Case Summary | Plaintiffs argue that the Ohio Secretary of State, in a July Directive, incorrectly concluded that Ohio law does not allow county officials to accept absentee ballot applications sent via email or fax, only accepting mailed and in-person absentee ballot applications. They seek a declaratory judgment that voters are allowed to request ballots via email, enjoin counties from rejecting those applications on that basis, and further argues that banning the practice violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Ohio Constitution. | |
| Filed | 08/04/2020 | |
| State | Ohio | |
| Type of Court | State | |
| Status | Closed () | |
| Last Updated | 11/07/2020 | |
| Issue Tag(s) | Vote-by-Mail (Other Vote-by-Mail Issue) Plaintiffs argue Ohio law allows emailed absentee ballot applications |
|
| Complaint(s) | 08/04/2020: Complaint filed. | |
| Dispositive Ruling(s) | 09/11/2020: Order/Ruling, The Court of Appeals granted a stay, without opinion, of the trial court's preliminary injunction pending appeal. | |
| 09/11/2020: Order/Ruling, The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas granted the preliminary injunction in full, finding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits and that the Directive would cause irreparable harm to them if left in place while the case went on. | ||
| 09/11/2020: Order/Ruling, The Court of Appeals granted a stay, without opinion, of the trial court's preliminary injunction pending appeal. | ||
Ohio Democratic Party v. LaRose, No. 20AP428 (Ohio Ct. App.) |
||
| Case Summary | The Ohio Secretary of state issued a directive requiring applications for a mail-in ballot to be submitted to the voter's county election board either by mail or in person. The Ohio Democratic Party sued for an injunction to allow voters to submit their applications by email or fax, arguing that the Secretary's policy violated Ohio statutory and constitutional law. The trial court granted the injunction. The Secretary then appealed the decision, as did Defendant-Intervenors RNC and the Trump Campaign. All Defendants argued that the trial court erred in issuing the injunction, and the Defendant-Intervnors argued that the plaintiffs also lacked standing, and that their claim was barred by laches. | |
| Filed | 09/16/2020 | |
| State | Ohio | |
| Type of Court | State | |
| Status | Closed () | |
| Last Updated | 11/07/2020 | |
| Issue Tag(s) | Vote-by-Mail (Other Vote-by-Mail Issue) Authority To Act (State Separation of Powers) Failure to allow electronic submission of VBM applications |
|
| Complaint(s) | 09/16/2020: Complaint filed. | |
| Dispositive Ruling(s) | 09/29/2020: Other, The appellate court reversed the trial court's injunction. The court found that the plaintiffs had standing, and that their claims were not barred by laches. Nevertheless, the court reversed the trial court because it found that plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on the merits of their claim. R.C. 3509.03 defines the process by which an Ohio voter must apply for an absentee ballot. However, the statute is silent regarding the methods by which the applications must be submitted to election officials. The court found that this ambiguity implicitly delegated to the Secretary of State the authority to define the methods by which the ballots could be submitted. The court also rejected the plaintiff's claims under the Ohio Constitution, because the plaintiffs presented no evidence that the Secretary's directive made it significantly more difficult for any person to vote, and because the Secretary's rule served the state's compelling interest in preserving the integrity of its elections. The planitiffs would not suffer irreparable harm without an injunction, because they could simply submit their applications by mail. And the court found that an injunction might cause harm to the defendants, because it could open Ohio's election instructure to cyberattacks, and because it would require the state to hire additional workers and set up electronic infrastructure. The court therefore reversed the trial court's issuancec of an injunction, and remanded for further proceedings. Judge Dorrian concurred in the judgment, finding persuasive the Secretary's interpretation of R.C. 3509.03, and the Secretary's concern that electronic submissions of applications could lead to cyberattacks. But Judge Dorrian nevertheless wrote separately to argue that the Secretary's directive was not reasonably justified by other provisions of Ohio statutory law, and to emphasize that the order was likely to cause meaningful harm to voters who would now have difficulty submitting applications. | |
