[EL] whatever happened to...?

[Steve Huefner]

I don't think it is correct to describe HB 194 as an attempt to change the
rules applicable to Hunter v. Board itself, nor do I think that is what the
newspaper article means to say.  But HB 194 does attempt to change the rules
that would apply to the same issues raised in Hunter, when they come up in
future cases.  In that sense the article's claim that "HB 194 seems to
directly target Hunter v. Board" is misleading.  It should instead say
something like "HB 194 seems to directly target the same issues at the core
of Hunter v. Board."  The point, then (as the article does note), is "to
prevent future candidates from raising similar issues."

 

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Rick
Hasen
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 10:24 AM
To: Josh Douglas
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] whatever happened to...?

 

The newspaper article which Josh links to says "This case is significant,
not only in that it relies on the rarely cited standards of Bush v Gore, but
because recently passed Ohio House Bill 194 seems to directly target Hunter
v Board by attempting to close the future door on all issues raised by her
case, to prevent future candidates from raising similar issues."

Does anyone know how Bill 194 specifically impacts this case?  It would be
odd (and I would argue likely constitutional) for a legislature to change
election rules for resolving a disputed election retroactively.



On 8/4/2011 9:03 PM, Josh Douglas wrote: 

Regarding the Hunter case from Hamilton County, Ohio, it looks like the case
is proceeding through the trial process in the district court.  The Moritz
site has the various trial documents:
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/Hunter.php.  See also this
news story, from last week, which says the trial was going into its second
week:
http://www.thecincinnatiherald.com/news/2011-07-30/Front_Page/Federal_trial_
continues_in_Hunter_vs_Board_of_Elec.html

On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Richard Winger <richardwinger at yahoo.com>
wrote:


1. What is the status of counting the votes in Hamilton County, Ohio, for
that partisan local judgeship that involved a dispute over counting certain
provisional ballots, and went all the way to the US Supreme Court and back
down again?

2. What is the status of the remaining challenge to the Nevada law requiring
local officials to recuse themselves from voting if a supporter of theirs
has a stake in the thing being voted on?  It went to the US Supreme Court as
Nevada Commission on Ethics v Carrigan, but the US Supreme Court decision of
June 13, 2011, didn't settle all the legal issues.

thanks!


_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election




-- 
Joshua A. Douglas
Assistant Professor of Law
University of Kentucky College of Law
620 S. Limestone
Lexington, KY 40506 

(859) 257-4935

joshuadouglas at uky.edu

 

 

 

-- 
Rick Hasen
Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu
http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110805/586abb0f/attachment.html>