Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Litigation

Last Updated: December 6, 2018 at 12:08 PM

Rick Scott for Senate v. Bucher

Case Information

Date Filed: November 8, 2018
State: Florida
Issue: Absentee Ballots
Courts that Heard this Case: Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit (Palm Beach County) (Case 50-2018-CA-014075)

Issue:

Whether Florida law permits plaintiff to witness defendant's processing of absentee ballots

Status:

Complaint filed 11/8/18. Motion for Prelminary Injunction filed 11/9/18. Court orders filed 11/9/18 and 11/10/18. Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed 11/20/18

District Court Documents

Complaint (11/08/18)

Scot-TRO Motion (11/08/18)

Emergency Stay (11/09/18)

Court Order (11/09/18)

Scotts Response (11/09/18)

Court Order on Stay (11/10/18)

Bucher Notice of Appeal (11/10/18)

Scotts Motion For Relief (11/10/18)

Motion of League of Women Voters of Florida, Common Cause to Intervene (11/10/18)

Memorandum (11/13/18)

Amended Notice of Appeal (11/13/18)

Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (11/20/18)

Commentary

Gerrymandering as Viewpoint Discrimination: A "Functional Equivalence" Test

Edward B. Foley

A First Amendment test for identifying when a map is functionally equivalent to a facially discriminatory statute.

more commentary...

In the News

This is why US election ballots routinely go missing

Professor Dan Tokaji was quoted in USA Today about the prevalence of missing election ballots.

 

"Most of the time, it just goes unreported because it doesn't affect the result," Tokaji said. 

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Supreme Court Finds Partisan Gerrymandering Claims to be Non-Justiciable Political Questions

In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion on Thursday determining that claims of partisan gerrymandering are political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts. The opinion resolved disputes originating in North Carolina and Maryland, in the cases of Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek.

more info & analysis...

Major Pending Cases

• A. Philip Randolph Institute of Ohio v. LaRose
• Anderson v. Raffensperger
• Arizona Democratic Party v. Hobbs
• Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee
• Black Votes Matter Fund v. Raffensperger
• Bruni v. Hughs
• Common Cause v. Kemp
• Crossey v. Boockvar
• Daunt v. Benson
• Democracy North Carolina v. North Carolina State Board of Elections
• Democratic National Committee v. Bostelmann
• Drenth v. Boockvar
• Ebenezer Baptist Church v. Raffensperger
• Edwards v. Vos
• Gallagher v. New York State Board of Elections
• Gary v. Virginia Department of Elections
• Gear v. Knudson
• Georgia Coalition for the Peoples' Agenda v. Raffensperger
• Gilby v. Hughs
• Gloria v. Hughs
• Hoffard v. Cochise
• Jacobson v. Lee
• Jones v. DeSantis
• Judicial Watch v. Pennsylvania
• League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Benson
• League of Women Voters of Ohio v. LaRose
• League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar
• League of Women Voters of Virginia v. Virginia State Board of Elections
• Lewis v. Hughs
• Luft v. Evers
• Mecinas v. Hobbs
• New Georgia Project v. Raffensperger
• Nielsen v. DeSantis
• People First of Alabama v. Merrill
• Priorities USA v. Nessel
• S.P.S. ex rel. Short v. Raffensperger
• Stringer v. Cascos
• Swenson v. Bostelmann
• Texas Democratic Party v. Abbott
• Texas Democratic Party v. Hughs
• The Andrew Goodman Foundation v. Bostelmann
• Thompson v. DeWine
• Trump v. Boockvar
• Trump v. Cegavske
• Voto Latino Inc. v. Hobbs

more litigation...

• 2008 Key Questions for Key States
• McCain v. Obama
• Election Law Journal
• From Registration to Recounts
• Citizens United

Election Law @ Moritz | The Ohio State University Michael E. Moritz College of Law | electionlaw@osu.edu

Please note: Election Law @ Moritz is nonpartisan and does not endorse, support, or oppose any candidate, campaign, or party. Opinions expressed by individuals associated with Election Law @ Moritz, either on this web site or in connection with conferences or other activities undertaken by the program, represent solely the views of the individuals offering the opinions and not the program itself. Election Law @ Moritz institutionally does not represent any clients or participate in any litigation. Individuals affiliated with the program may in their own personal capacity participate in campaign or election activity, or engage in pro bono representation of clients other than partisan candidates or organizations.

PDF files in this site require Adobe Reader to view (link opens in NEW window). If you have trouble accessing this page or need to request an alternate format, please email the Moritz Law Webmaster.