Information AboutMoss V. Bush |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT MOSS V. BUSH | |
| ohio state case law | |
| united states presidential election, 2004 | |
| 2004 u.s. presidential election controversy and irregularities | |
| 2004 in law | |
|
Following the dismissal, Arnebeck, et. al. filed a motion to intervene in a federal case brought on Election Day by the Ohio Democratic Party against Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell {Link without Title} . The status of the case and Arnebeck's filing is still pending. DETAILS OF THE CASE The case challenged Ohio's certification of its electoral votes, which had been awarded to George W. Bush and his running mate, Dick Cheney , the candidates on the Republican Party ticket. The plaintiffs alleged that there had been widespread systematic election fraud that altered the outcome of the election; lead plaintiffs' attorney Cliff Arnbeck claimed to have evidence to prove these accusations. On that basis, the suit asked the courts to set aside the certified results, and, possibly, award the state's electoral votes to John Kerry and his running mate, John Edwards , the candidates on the Democratic Party ticket. Ohio law permits the state Supreme Court to review elections in such cases, but it is unclear if the courts can award electoral college votes to a particular candidate. The complaint read in part: :The Contestors ''"ask the Court to determine that the number of votes affected by the irregularities identified herein are sufficient to declare the Kerry-Edwards ticket the winner of Ohio's electoral votes for the office of President and Vice President for the terms commencing on January 20, 2005, and that the certificates of election to the Bush-Cheney electors named as Defendants-Contestees be cancelled by operation of law as set forth in R.C. 3515.14, or, in the alternative, that such irregularities, errors, frauds, and mistakes make the result of the election so uncertain that the Court should order the results of the election be set aside persuant to R.C."'' The suit further made a number of specific claims:
LITIGATION The first filing On . :Judge's opinion: ''"Nothing in the pertinent election-contest statutes or case law construing R.C. 3515.08 permits contesting more than one election in one case. In fact, the statutes contemplate that an election-contest case will challenge only one election. For instance, R.C. 3515.09 provides that {Link without Title} contest of election shall be commenced by the filing of a petition with the clerk of the appropriate court signed by at least twenty-five voters who voted at the last election for or against a candidate for the office or for or against the issue being contested) (emphasis added), and R.C. 3515.14 provides that the court shall dispose of an election contest by pronouncing judgment as to which candidate (not candidates) was elected."'' The second filing On 17 December , the case was refiled, with it now referring only to the election of Ohio's electors for the presidential electoral college. A request was also made that the Court declare the Kerry-Edwards presidential ticket the rightful winner of Ohio's electoral votes. On 22 December , Judge Moyers denied the request for an expedited trial and asked: # ''"Whether this petition is moot based on the fact that it was filed subsequent to the "safe harbor" date established by 3 U.S.C. 5 and 7 ? This date was December 7, 2004 for the November 2, 2004 election."'' # ''"January 6, 2005 is the date by 3 U.S.C. 15 for congress to review the votes of the electors and formally declare the winner of the presidential election. What would be the legal significance of the passage of that date, relative to the contestors' petition?"'' On 27 December , Kenneth Blackwell refused to appear at a deposition. (AP) (AP) (Contester's publication) :"''Richard Conglianese, Ohio Assistant Attorney General, is seeking a court order to protect Blackwell from testifying under oath about how the election was run. James R. Dicks, Miami County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, filed a motion to block a subpoena in his county while Conglianese filed to block subpoenas in ten key Ohio counties. '' President George Bush, Vice-President Richard Cheney and White House Political Advisor Karl Rove received notice that they will be deposed Tuesday and Wednesday, December 28 and 29. The trio’s Ohio attorney, Kurt Tunnell, so far claims his clients have not been properly served. Under Ohio law, the Republican-dominated Ohio Supreme Court is responsible for serving the three with subpoenas. "...The challengers are seeking a January 4th hearing before the Ohio Supreme Court. On 29 December , 2004 , Judge Moyer refused to recuse himself, and spoke dismissively of the suit: :"''The voters and their attorneys filed poorly documented affidavits that contain hearsay, don't indicate who the people making statements are and don't explain what their statements have to do with the election.''" On 31 December , 2004 , several expert witnesses submitted testimony.
On 3 January , 2005 , George Bush's election campaign asked Judge Moyer to dismiss the case. On 11 January , 2005 , the plaintiffs asked to drop the case, saying congressional certification of the electoral votes on 6 January , 2005 and the upcoming inauguration rendered the case moot. The judge accepted the motion, and the case was thereby dismissed. Lawyer for plaintiff Cliff Arnebeck said they would be seeking "other avenues". Counter-sanction On 18 January , 2005 , Ohio's Secretary of State filed a motion for sanction against the plaintiffs, alleging that the claim in ''Moss v. Bush'' was meritless, did not meet the standards of evidence required by law, and was brought only for partisan political purposes. {Link without Title}
Moss v. Moyer On 20 December , 2004 , the case contesting "...the certification of the election of Thomas Moyer for the office of Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court for the term commencing in 2005." was refiled. The case is known as "Moss v. Moyer". Justice Maureen O'Connor was designated to preside over the matter by Governor Bob Taft. On 28 December , 2004 , Justice O'Connor stated that the contestors must state "circumstances constituting fraud or mistake with particularity", and that it was thereby ordered (pursuant R.C. 3515.11):
On 11 January , 2005 , the Contesters asked to drop the case due to delays by the court and Defendants that made it moot, and it was thereby dismissed. LITIGATION DOCUMENTS First filing
Second filing
Moss v. Moyer
POTENTIAL OUTCOMES After Ohio's electoral college votes had been certified, John Kerry would have required court and/or congressional intervention to win the election. Ohio law allows its courts to overturn the results of any election, including their election of presidential electors. There is some ambiguity as to whether an Ohio court, if finding that the wrong set of Electors were elected, could order their votes changed. Kerry could also have won in Ohio if legal action or uncovered gross fraud. Kerry needed more than 118,000 additional votes, so the recount alone, which could have considered 93,000 additional ballots, would probably not help much. There is evidence that Inequitable Distribution Of Voting Machines , resulting in an unevenly distributed effective occurrences of multi-hour waiting, may also more than make up the vote difference; however, the recount process did not take these issues into account. If the election had been overturned at the Ohio level, this may have given greater strength to the challenge raised during Congressional counting of the electoral college votes. Congress could still have voted to accept the Bush electors that have already been appointed. However, an order by an Ohio court to the electors requiring them to change their votes might have been sufficient to change the result. SEE ALSO EXTERNAL LINKS Related correspondence
Multimedia
References
Further reading
|
|
|