United States Sixth Circuit

Summary judgment for defendants in a complaint brought by voters involving allegedly inadequate voting equipment used in certain Ohio counties is: 1) reversed as to a claim under the Equal Protection Clause where the challenged technologies failed to satisfy "rudimentary requirements of equal treatment and fundamental fairness"; and 2) vacated as to a claim under the Voting Rights Act.

Appellate Information

• Decided 04/21/2006
• Published 04/21/2006

Judges

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Richard Saphire, The University of Dayton Law School, Dayton, OH, Laughlin McDonald, Meredith E.B. Bell-Platts, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Atlanta, GA, Daniel P. Tokaji, Ohio State University College of Law, Columbus, OH, Paul F. Moke, Wilmington College, Wilmington, OH, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.


• For Appellees:
  
• Sharon A. Jennings, Asst. Atty. General, Stephen P. Carney, Douglas R. Cole, Office of the Attorney General of Ohio, Mark D. Landes, Jeffrey A. Stankunas, Isaac, Brant, Ledman & Teetor, Richard N. Coglianese, Office of the Attorney General Employment Law Section, Holly J. Hunt, Ohio Attorney General's Office Constitutional Offices Section, Columbus, OH, Victor T. Whisman, Office of the Prosecuting Attorney for the County of Montgomery, Dayton, OH, Anita L. Davis, Summit County Prosecutor's Office, Akron, OH, David Todd Stevenson, Hamilton County Prosecuting Office, Cincinnati, OH, for Defendants-Appellees.