King Lincoln Bronzeville Neighborhood Ass'n v. Blackwell

Last updated
King Lincoln Bronzeville Neighborhood Ass'n v. Blackwell
Ohio-southern.gif
Court United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Full case nameKing Lincoln Bronzeville Neighborhood Association, et al. v. J. Kenneth Blackwell, et al.
DecidedSeptember 11, 2006
Docket nos. 2:06-cv-00745
Citation(s)448 F. Supp. 2d 876
Holding
Blackwell does have the authority to issue a directive to Ohio's 88 county boards of elections to preserve the presidential election ballots, but must preserve said ballots.[ clarification needed ]
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Algenon L. Marbley

King Lincoln Bronzeville Neighborhood Association v. Blackwell, 448 F. Supp. 2d 876 (S.D. Ohio 2006), is a court case filed on August 31, 2006 [1] to define if the Ohio Secretary of State at the time, Kenneth Blackwell, had violated the Civil Rights Act, first, thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments to the United States Constitution through previous election procedure. [1]

Contents

Claims of suit

The plaintiffs of the case, Willis Brown, Paul Gregory, Miles Curtiss, Matthew Segal, and Harvey Wasserman [2] filed a civil rights action case on behalf of the King Lincoln Bronzeville Neighborhood Association, the Ohio Voter Rights Alliance for Democracy and the League of Young Voters. [2]

Blackwell, the defendant, was cited in the original complaint as "having conspired to deprive and continue to deprive Ohioans of their right to vote and have, in fact, deprived and continue to deprive Ohioans of their right to vote by, in a selective and discriminatory manner, unfairly allocate election resources (such as voting machines), institute a system of provisional ballots, purge voter registrations, and broke the bi-partisan chain of custody ballots". [2]

Defense

In his response to the amended complaint of the plaintiffs, Blackwell answered by denying allegations that he violated the securities of the Civil Rights Act as enumerated in Paragraph 1 of the amended complaint, [3] that he operated with other parties in Paragraph 2, [3] that he participated in "election fraud, vote dilution, vote suppression, recount fraud and other violations...", that he "arranged for the use of tens of thousands of ballots in high-performance Democratic precincts that were prepunches for a third-party presidential candidate so as to create an overvote and disqualification of such a vote when cast for Kerry" [3] and that he participated in these in an "ongoing conspiracy" [3] [4]

Motions during case

Several motions were filed during the proceedings of the case. [5]

Motion to intervene by the State of Ohio

Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro filed a motion on behalf of the State of Ohio to "defend the constitutionality...[of] Ohio's Voter Identification Statutes" [6] which was granted. [7]

Other motions

The plaintiffs also filed a motion to expedite the hearing on the plaintiff's previous request for a preliminary injunction. [8]

Orders and results

Judge Marbley, in an order filed on September 7, 2006, ordered County Board of Elections to save all ballots from the 2004 presidential election. [9]

Additionally, in the 7th filing to the case, Judge Marbley and the court found that "Blackwell does have the authority to issue a directive to Ohio's 88 county boards of elections to preserve the presidential election ballots", that because the case was filed prior to the expiration of the twenty-two month preservation period [10] (set forth in previous Ohio legislation), Blackwell must preserve said ballots.

Judge Marbley finally stated in an order signed April 6, 2007 in an agreed order that [11] the Secretary of State in 2007, Jennifer Brunner, should "prepare a directive pursuant to R.C. 3501.05 requiring the 88 county boards of elections to transfer the custody of the Secretary of State of Ohio all ballots from the 2004 Presidential election...previously preserved in accordance with the Court's September 11, 2006 Opinion and Order." [11] He further ordered that all ballots be maintained in a "secure location." [11]

In July, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a document purporting to be a contract between Secy. of State Ken Blackwell and Republican computer consultant Michael Connell, specifying the computer architecture that would allow the White House to have access to Ohio vote counts in real time as they were reported on election night, including the ability to modify those numbers remotely. [12]

Motions for reconsideration

Judge Algenon L. Marbley denied a motion for reconsideration on December 22, 2009 (filed date). [5]

Opinion and Order Dismissing Case Without Prejudice

Judge Marbley dismissed the case, on February 7, 2012. [13]

The court found that: (1) the Eleventh Amendment precludes subject matter jurisdiction before this Court, and this case is now DISMISSED without prejudice (2) Plaintiffs have failed to provide factual or legal bases for deposing local Chamber of Commerce members, and therefore their request to depose local Chamber of Commerce members is DENIED; and (3) Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate an evidentiary basis for the Secretary to continue storing the 2004 election ballots, and therefore their request to retain the ballots is DENIED.

Related Research Articles

Moss v. Bush was a lawsuit filed by 37 Ohio voters challenging Ohio's certified electoral college votes in the 2004 U.S. presidential election. It was filed on 13 December 2004, and dismissed at the plaintiffs' request following the acceptance of Ohio's votes by the U.S. Congress and Senate on January 6, 2005. The suit was headed by Cliff Arnebeck of the Alliance for Democracy.

The Oklahoma Libertarian Party is the recognized state affiliate of the Libertarian Party in Oklahoma. It has been active in state politics since the 1970s, but due to what critics characterize as Oklahoma's restrictive ballot access requirements the party has been an officially recognized party during only portions of the last twenty-five years. In 2016, The Oklahoma Libertarian Party regained its ballot access. Through running strong candidates in targeted campaigns, the state party has maintained, and currently has secured, ballot access through 2024 at a minimum.

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that an Indiana law requiring voters to provide photographic identification did not violate the United States Constitution.

<i>Abtan v. Blackwater</i>

Atban v. Blackwater, 611 F. Supp. 2d 1, was a lawsuit brought by the victims and families affected by the September 16, 2007 Blackwater Baghdad shootings against Blackwater Worldwide, a private military contractor since renamed Academi. The case was consolidated with Estate of Albazzaz, et al. v. Blackwater Lodge and Training Center, Inc. et al., and the consolidated case was ultimately settled confidentially out of court.

Wisconsin circuit courts

The Wisconsin circuit courts are the general trial courts in the state of Wisconsin. There are currently 69 circuits in the state, divided into 10 judicial administrative districts. Circuit court judges hear and decide both civil and criminal cases. Each of the 249 circuit court judges are elected and serve six-year terms.

Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968), was a case before the United States Supreme Court.

2010 California Proposition 14 California ballot measure

Proposition 14 is a California ballot proposition that appeared on the ballot during the June 2010 state elections. It was a constitutional amendment that effectively transformed California's non-Presidential elections from first-past-the-post to a nonpartisan blanket primary. The proposition was legislatively referred to voters by the State Legislature and approved by 54% of the voters. It consolidated all primary elections for a particular office into an election with one ballot that would be identical to all voters, regardless of their party preferences. The two candidates with the most votes in the primary election would then be the only candidates who would run in the general election, regardless of their party affiliation.

Numerous lawsuits and ballot challenges, based on conspiracy theories related to Barack Obama's eligibility for the United States presidency, were filed following his first election in 2008 and over the course of his two terms as president. These actions sought to have Obama disqualified from running for, or being confirmed for, the Presidency of the United States, to declare his actions in office to be null and void, or to compel him to release additional documentation related to his U.S. citizenship.

<i>Doe ex. rel. Tarlow v. District of Columbia</i>

Doe ex. rel. Tarlow v. District of Columbia, 489 F.3d 376, is a unanimous decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, written by Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh, in which the Court upheld a 2003 District of Columbia statute that stated the conditions for authorizing a non-emergency surgical procedure on a mentally incompetent person. This case developed out of an appeal to a district court decision that was brought on behalf of a mentally incompetent patient who was subjected to an abortion without her consent and another patient who was subjected to an eye surgery without the patient's consent. Under the appellate court's interpretation of the statute, a court located in the District of Columbia must apply the "best interest of the patient" standard to a person who was never competent, and the court must apply the "known wishes of the patient" standard to a person who was once competent. The appellate decision was remanded to the District Court.

<i>ACLU v. Trump and Pence</i>

ACLU v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-01351, is a case pending before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs, the watchdog group American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), alleges that the defendants, President Donald Trump and the Vice President Michael Pence, are in violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act by establishing the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity for the purpose of supporting the President’s "claim that he won the popular vote in the 2016 election—once millions of supposedly illegal votes are subtracted from the count."

<i>Stone v. Trump</i>

Stone v. Trump (1:17-cv-02459-MJG) is a lawsuit filed on August 28, 2017 in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The lawsuit alleges that President Donald Trump's ban on transgender personnel joining the U.S. military violates their equal protection and due process rights. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Maryland filed the suit on behalf of Petty Officer First Class Brock Stone, an 11-year veteran of the U.S. Navy, and several other transgender service members. In addition to President Trump, the suit names as defendants the Secretaries of Defense, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force.

<i>Joyner v. Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity</i>

Joyner v. Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity is a federal case brought before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiffs, including Arthenia Joyner, the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, and others, sought to enjoin the State of Florida from transferring voter records to the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity.

After the 2020 United States presidential election, the campaign for incumbent President Donald Trump and others filed and lost at least 63 lawsuits contesting election processes, vote counting, and the vote certification process in multiple states, including Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Among the judges who dismissed the lawsuits were some appointed by Trump himself.

Before Election Day of the 2020 United States presidential election, lawsuits related to the voting process were filed in various states. Many of these lawsuits were related to measures taken by state legislatures and election officials in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Texas v. Pennsylvania, 592 U.S. ___ (2020), was a lawsuit filed at the United States Supreme Court contesting the administration of the 2020 presidential election in certain states, in which Joe Biden defeated incumbent Donald Trump.

In direct response to Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boockvar and the 2020 United States presidential election in Pennsylvania, the Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign launched numerous lawsuits contesting the purview of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the election processes of Pennsylvania. All of these have either been dismissed or dropped. The last two remaining cases were dismissed without comment by the Supreme Court on February 22, 2021. On April 19, 2021, more than five months after the November 3, 2020 election, the Supreme Court declined to hear the outstanding case brought by former Republican congressional candidate Jim Bognet, dismissing it without comment.

In direct response to election changes related to the COVID-19 pandemic, 2020 United States presidential election in Arizona, and "Sharpiegate"; the Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign launched numerous lawsuits contesting the election processes of Arizona. All of these have either been dismissed or dropped.

The Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign launched numerous lawsuits contesting the election processes of Nevada. Many of the processes contested were created due to the COVID-19 pandemic. All of these have either been dismissed or dropped.

In direct response to election changes related to the COVID-19 pandemic and 2020 United States presidential election in Georgia; the Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign launched numerous lawsuits contesting the election processes of Georgia. Almost all of these have either been dismissed or dropped.

In direct response to election changes related to the COVID-19 pandemic and 2020 United States presidential election in Wisconsin; the Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign launched numerous lawsuits contesting the election processes of Wisconsin. All of these have either been dismissed or dropped.

References

  1. 1 2 King Lincoln Bronzeville Neighborhood Association v. Blackwell, Moritz (OSU.edu)
  2. 1 2 3 Complaint Text (PDF)
  3. 1 2 3 4 Amended Complaint against all defendants (PDF)
  4. Defendant Response to Amended Complaint (PDF)
  5. 1 2 Motions
  6. MOTION TO INTERVENE BY THE STATE OF OHIO
  7. Motion to Intervene by state of Ohio Granted
  8. Motion For Expedited Hearing
  9. Order to Preserve Election Ballots, Judge Marbley, Filing 6
  10. King Lincoln Bronzeville Neighborhood Ass'n v. Blackwell, 448F. Supp. 2d876 ( S.D. Ohio 2006).
  11. 1 2 3 Agreed Order
  12. "Independent News Media from Columbus, Ohio". The Free Press. Retrieved 2012-08-05.
  13. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-10-18. Retrieved 2012-10-29.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)