1. Help
2. Campus map
3. Find people
4. Webmail
5. Search Ohio State

• About
  EL@M
  • About Us
  • Experts by Topic
• Faculty
  • Edward B. "Ned" Foley
  • Daniel P. Tokaji
  • Terri L. Enns
  • Steven F. Huefner
  • Donald B. Tobin
  • EL@M Fellows
  • EL@M Staff
  • Experts by Topic
• Election Law
  Litigation
  • Major Pending Cases
  • Archived Cases
• Current
  Features
  • News Wire
  • Key Questions for Key States
  • Compare State Election Laws
  • State-Specific Election Laws
  • State-by-State Coverage
  • Topic-by-Topic Coverage
  • Voting Machine Issues Nationwide (2008)
  • From Registration to Recounts (Book)
  • Major Election Law Reports
  • Equal Vote
  • Free & Fair
  • Featured Comments
• Archived
  Features
  • 50 Questions for 5 Key States
  • 2008 Pre-Election Litigation Risk Assessment
  • 2008 Primary Post-Election Timeline
  • Voter ID Litigation Nationwide
  • 2006 Election Overview
  • 2006 Recount Roundup
  • 2006 Ohio Primary Problems
  • 2006 Voting Technology Nationwide
  • 2006 Election Podcasts
  • Electronic Roundtable '06
  • Ohio Voter Registration Regulations
  • e-Book
  • Past Case Decisions
  • 2005 Redistricting Developments
• Biweekly
  Update
  • Subscribe
• Related
  Links
• McCain v.
  Obama
• Free & Fair
  (Foley)
• A Joint Project with
  the Moritz Law Library
• Media

Stewart v. Blackwell

(page last updated October 16, 2007 at 3:52 PM)

Case Information

All Courts: U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio (Case 5:02-cv-02028); U.S. Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit (Case 05-3044)
Topic(s): Voting Technology
State: Ohio
Date Filed: October 11, 2002
Date Ended: January 31, 2007

Issue: Whether the use of punch card and optical scan voting systems in a limited number of Ohio counties violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Status: Appellate Court issued order 1/12/07: The judgment of the district court is vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss as moot. Dismissal entered 1/31/07.

Please Note: Daniel P. Tokaji, in his individual capacity and not representing Election Law @ Moritz, is participating in this case as an attorney for plaintiffs.

Summary: Read Detailed Summary

District Court Documents

• Complaint (filed 10/11/02)
• Answer (Montgomery County Board of Elections) (filed 11/5/02)
• Answer (Sandusky County Board of Elections) (filed 11/14/02)
• Answer (J. Kenneth Blackwell) (filed 11/14/02)
• Answer (Summit County Board of Elections) (filed 11/27/02)
• Answer (Hamilton County Board of Elections) (filed 12/2/02)
• Answer (members of Hamilton County Board of Elections - in their individual capacity) (filed 1/2/03)
• First Amended Complaint (filed 3/25/03)
• Answer to First Amended Complaint (Montgomery County Board of Elections) (filed 3/28/03)
• Answer to First Amended Complaint (J. Kenneth Blackwell) (filed 3/31/03)
• Answer to First Amended Complaint (Summit County Board of Elections) (filed 4/3/03)
• Answer to First Amended Complaint (Sandusky County Board of Elections) (filed 4/14/03)
• Amended Answer (Hamilton County Board of Elections) (filed 4/25/03)
• Second Amended Complaint (filed 8/29/03)
• Amended Answer to Second Amended Complaint (Hamilton County Board of Elections) (filed 9/12/03)
• Answer to Second Amended Complaint (Montgomery County Board of Elections) (filed 9/15/03)
• Answer to Second Amended Complaint (Sandusky County Board of Elections) (filed 9/15/03)
• Answer to Second Amended Complaint (J. Kenneth Blackwell) (filed 9/17/03)
• Answer to Second Amended Complaint (Summit County Board of Elections) (filed 9/17/03)
• Motion for Summary Judgment by all Plaintiffs (filed 3/19/04)
• Motion for Summary Judgment by Sandusky County Defendants (filed 3/19/04)
• Motion for Summary Judgment By Defendants State of Ohio, Hamilton County, Montgomery County, and Summit County (filed 3/19/04)
  • Memorandum in Support
• Defendants' Motion Contra Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 4/16/04)
• Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment By Defendants State of Ohio, Hamilton County, Montgomery County, and Summit County (filed 4/16/04)
• Memorandum in Opposition to Sandusky County Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 4/16/04)
• Sandusky County Defendants' Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 4/16/04)
• Response of Hamilton County Defendants to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 4/19/06)
• Plaintiffs' Reply to Separate Response of Hamilton County to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 4/30/04)
• Plaintiffs' Reply to Sandusky County's Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 4/30/04)
• Plaintiffs' Reply to Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendants State of Ohio, Hamilton County, Montgomery County, and Summit County (filed 4/30/04)
• Defendants' Reply Brief in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 4/30/04)
• Sandusky County Defendants' Reply in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 4/30/04)
• Supplemental Brief of Hamilton County Defendants Regarding the Several Motions for Summary Judgment and Associated Responses and Replies Filed Herein (filed 5/21/04)
• Sandusky County Defendants' Supplemental Brief in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 5/21/04)
• Defendants' Supplemental Brief in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 5/21/04)
• Plaintiffs' Response to Hamilton County Defendants' Allegations of Undisputed Fact (filed 6/4/04)
• Plaintiffs' Response to Sandusky County Defendants' Allegations of Undisputed Fact (filed 6/4/04)
• Plaintiffs' Response to State Defendants', Summit County Defendants', and Montgomery County Defendants' Allegations of Undisputed Fact (filed 6/4/04)
• Sandusky County Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief Identifying Undisputed Facts in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 6/4/04)
• Defendants State of Ohio's, Montgomery County's, and Summit County's Reply To Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief Identifying Undisputed Facts In Support Of Their Motion For Summary Judgment (filed 6/4/04)
• Orders denying Motions for Summary Judgment (entered 6/18/04)
• Defendants' Trial Brief (filed 7/19/04)
• Plaintiffs' Trial Brief (filed 7/19/04)
• Montgomery County Defendants' Post-Trial Brief (filed 11/15/04)
• State Defendants' Post-Trial Brief (filed 11/15/04)
• Plaintiffs' Post-Trial Brief (filed 11/15/04)
• Final Argument of Hamilton County Defendants (filed 11/15/04)
• Summit County Defendants' Post-Trial Brief (filed 11/15/04)
• Post-Trial Brief of Sandusky County Defendants (filed 11/15/04)
• District Court Decision (entered 12/14/04)
  • Appendix I
  • Appendix II
  • Appendix III
• Court of Appeals Decision (entered 4/21/06)
• Petition for Rehearing En Banc filed by the Ohio Secretary of State, J. Kenneth Blackwell (filed 5/5/06)
• Petition for Rehearing En Banc filed by Hamilton, Montgomery and Summit Counties (filed 5/5/06)
• Petition for Rehearing En Banc filed by Sandusky County (filed 5/5/06)
• Response to Petitions for Rehearing En Banc (filed 6/19/06)
• ORDER filed granting petition for rehearing en banc (entered 7/21/06)
  • Vacated the previous decision and judgment of the Court and stayed the previous mandate.
  • Supplemental Appellant Brief + 25 Copies Of Initial Brief Due 8/21/06
  • Supplemental Appellee Brief + 25 Copies Of Initial Brief Due 9/20/06
  • 25 Copies Of Initial Appendix Now Due 8/21/06.
• Supplemental brief, filed by Meredith E.B. Bell-Platts for Appellant (filed 8/23/06)
• Supplemental brief filed by Victor T. Whisman for Appellee J. Kenneth Blackwell (filed 09/13/06)
• BRIEFING LETTER SENT [non-document] setting reply brief briefing schedule: reply brief due 10/18/06 (filed 10/5/06)
• Supplemental Reply brief filed by Meredith E.B. Bell-Platts (filed 10/19/06)
• Order [non-document] setting Oral argument date for 12/6/06 2:00 pm (entered 10/23/06)
• Letter to the Court requesting that the case be dismissed as moot, by all plaintiffs (11/30/06)
• Order vacating the decision of the district court and remanding to the district court with instructions to dismiss the case as moot (entered 12/1/06)
  • Appellees may respond within 7 days of the issuance of the order
• Appellee RESPONSE filed regarding order issued on 12/1/06, by Montgomery County (filed 12/8/06)
• Appellee RESPONSE filed regarding order issued on 12/1/06, by J. Kenneth Blackwell (filed 12/8/06) [not yet available]
• REPLY filed by Meredith E.B. Bell-Platts for Appellant Slater (filed 12/13/06) [not yet available]
• ORDER filed: The judgment of the district court is VACATED and REMANDED with instructions to dismiss as moot (entered 1/12/07)
• Order of dismissal from district court (entered 1/31/07)

Related Links

• Blackwell's dual role criticized, The Cincinnati Enquirer (7/24/06) [no longer available online]
• Sixth Circuit Holds Ohio Voting Systems Unconstitutional, Equal Vote (4/21/06)
• e-Book: Voting Technology

Election Law @ Moritz | Professor Edward B. Foley, Director | 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, but individuals affiliated with the program may from time to time in their own personal capacity engage in pro bono representation of clients other than partisan candidates or organizations.

The Ohio State University | Michael E. Moritz College of Law | 55 West 12th Avenue | Columbus, OH 43210-1391 | (614) 292-2631