Miscellaneous

End of Song, or Beginning of Story?

By Anne Skove, Esq.

By now (unless you're a member of the national media, who seems to have mostly missed this development) you know that the SCOTUS not only granted Ohio Secretary of State Brunner's request for a stay, but also vacated the TRO altogether.

Moreover, the Court (in an unsigned order) opined that private parties (i.e., political parties) are not permitted challenges under the Help America Vote Act.

The Court stated: "respondents [...] are not sufficiently likely to prevail on the question whether Congress has authorized the District Court to enforce Section 303 in an action brought by a private litigant to justify the issuance of a TRO."

It appears, too, that state courts have jurisdiction over election matters, but that federal courts may be hauled in only as a last resort.

See Court Blocks Ohio Voter Match Order, by the incomparable Lyle Denniston, SCOTUSblog (October 17, 2008), and the somewhat confusing (to us, anyway) Justices Rule Against Ohio G.O.P. in Voting Case, Adam Liptak and Ian Urbina, NYT (October 17, 2008).

(Note to readers: if you know of a good election law blog, better than court-o-rama's lame attempts at filling in the interstices of this ever-changing topic, please let us know! The blog from Mortiz hasn't updated since July -- though the website itself is fabulous -- Law Professor Blogs doesn't include election law, and other so-called election law blogs aren't covering this case much.)

Is this the end of the controversy? Or is it like Louis Armstrong says in High Society, "End of song, beginning of story?"

Full post as published by court-o-rama.org on October 17, 2008 (boomark / email).