Major Pending Election Cases

Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless v. LaRose

Filing Date:

January 6, 2023

Status:

resolved

State:

Ohio

Topics:

Mail-In Voting, Voter ID

Most Recent Court:

United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (No. 1:23-cv-26)

Issue(s):

Lawsuit challenging several provisions of Ohio Senate Bill 458. The bill creates a photo ID requirement and eliminates a list of previously acceptable IDs, moves up the deadline to cure provisional and rejected mail-in ballots from seven to four days after election day and moves up the date to return mail-in ballots from ten to four days after election day. The plaintiffs contend that the bill severely restricts access to the poll, particularly for young, elderly, Black and overseas voters. They argue that the law is thus in violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution.

O’Halloran v. Benson

Filing Date:

September 28, 2022

Status:

resolved

State:

Michigan

Topic:

Polling Place Challengers

Most Recent Court:

Michigan Supreme Court (22-000162-MZ)

Issue(s):

Lawsuit challenging several new rules, set by the Secretary of State, concerning partisan election challengers are in violation of state law. These new rules include a requirement that every polling place have a challenger liaison, a restriction that only permits election challengers to communicate with challenger liaison, a regulation authorizing election inspectors to not record impermissible challenges, and a rule allowing challengers to be ejected from failing to follow instructions.

O’Rourke v. Dominion Voting Systems, Inc.

Filing Date:

December 12, 2020

Status:

resolved

State:

Colorado

Most Recent Court:

Dist. Colorado (No. 1:20-cv-03747)

Issue(s):

Plaintiffs brought claims against Dominion Voting Systems, Facebook, the Center for Tech and Civic Life and several governors and secretaries of state alleging that they burdened the voting rights of 160 million people during the 2020 election. Specifically, they alleged the defendants changed voting laws without legislative approval, used unreliable voting machines, altered votes, provided illegal methods of voting, and counted illegal votes. The District Court granted the motions to dismiss filed by the defendants.

Ohio Democratic Party v. LaRose

Filing Date:

March 17, 2020

Status:

resolved

State:

Ohio

Topic:

Improper Election Administration

Most Recent Court:

Ohio Supreme Court (Case 2020-0388)

Issue(s):

Whether the Secretary of State has the legal authority to suspend, move, or set the date of Ohio's 2020 presidential primary election.

Ohio Democratic Party v. LaRose

Filing Date:

August 25, 2020

Status:

resolved

State:

Ohio

Topics:

Absentee Ballots, Improper Election Administration, Voter Suppression

Most Recent Court:

Tenth District Ohio Court of Appeals (20AP-439)

Issue(s):

Whether Ohio Secretary of State LaRose's directive limiting each Ohio county to a single secure drop box for absentee applications and ballots in the 2020 election is consistent with Ohio law.

Ohio Democratic Party v. LaRose (20-CV-4997)

Filing Date:

July 31, 2020

Status:

resolved

State:

Ohio

Topic:

Absentee Ballots

Most Recent Court:

Tenth District Ohio Court of Appeals (20AP-421)

Issue(s):

Whether under Ohio law voters can request absentee ballots by emailing or faxing an image of their signed absentee ballot application to their county Board of Elections.

Ohio Organizing Collaborative et al. v. Ohio Redistricting Commission et al.

Filing Date:

September 27, 2021

Status:

resolved

State:

Ohio

Topic:

Redistricting

Most Recent Court:

Supreme Court of Ohio (2021-1210); Case consolidated with 2021-1198 and 2021-1193; For new filings, see League of Women Voters v. Ohio Redistricting Commission (2021-1193)

Issue(s):

Relators argue that the Ohio Redistricting Commission drew district lines that disproportionately favor Republicans in violation of Article XI of the Ohio Constitution.

Ohioans for Reproductive Rights v. Ohio Ballot Board

Filing Date:

August 28, 2023

Status:

resolved

State:

Ohio

Topic:

Ballot Language

Most Recent Court:

Supreme Court of Ohio (No. 2023-1088)

Issue(s):

Lawsuit challenging the ballot language for The Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety amendment. Plaintiffs allege that the language drafted by the Ohio Ballot Board "aims improperly to mislead Ohioans" in violation of Ohio law and the Ohio Constitution. Plaintiffs allege the ballot language mischaracterizes the amendment and does not include all the protections that the amendment would grant Ohioans. Additionally, the plaintiffs claim that ballot language's word choice is meant to sway voters against the amendment by, for example, including the term "unborn child" despite the term appearing nowhere in the ballot measure. Plaintiffs ask the court to order the Ohio Ballot Board to reconvene and adopt the full text of the amendment as the ballot language. Alternatively, the plaintiffs ask the court to order the Ohio Ballot Board to adopt language that properly describes the amendment.

One Person One Vote v. LaRose

Filing Date:

May 12, 2023

Status:

resolved

State:

Ohio

Topic:

Ballot Language

Most Recent Court:

Supreme Court of Ohio (No. 2023-0630)

Issue(s):

Relators ask the Ohio Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing Ohio Secretary of State LaRose to remove a constitutional amendment proposal, S.J.2, from the August 8, 2023 special election ballot. S.J.2 would increase the threshold to pass constitutional amendments from 50% to 60% of the vote for future elections. Relators argue that Ohio law does not allow for statewide special elections in August.

One Person One Vote v. Ohio Ballot Board

Filing Date:

May 23, 2023

Status:

resolved

State:

Ohio

Topic:

Ballot Language

Most Recent Court:

Supreme Court of Ohio (No. 2023-0630)

Issue(s):

Relators challenge the adopted ballot language for Senate Joint Resolution 2, a proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution that would raise the threshold necessary to pass any future constitutional amendments from 50% to 60%. They argue that the defendant used language that is inaccurate and incomplete and violates the Ohio Constitution. Relators also argue that the amendment's title is not impartial and creates prejudice in favor of the Amendment. They seek a writ of mandamus compelling the defendants to reconvene and rewrite the language of the amendment.

CASE TRACKER