HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.congcourts/restelec0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION
Restoration of the Elective Franchise
for a Voter Whose Sentencing Is Stayed
Hunter v. Hamilton County Board of Elections (1:16-cv-962)
and Hunter v. Hamilton County Board of Elections
(1:16-cv-996) (Michael R. Barrett, S.D. Ohio)
A plaintiff convicted in state court of a felony filed a federal com-
plaint on September 27, 2016, seeking an order requiring the county
board of elections to accept her voter registration because her sen-
tence had been stayed by the district court in a habeas corpus action,
so she was not incarcerated. A district judge granted the plaintiff re-
lief on October 6. A second federal complaint filed pro se on October
11 seeking the plaintiffs certification as a candidate for juvenile court
was not successful, because the plaintiff had been disbarred as a re-
sult of her conviction.
Subject: Nullifying registrations. Topics: Registration challenges;
getting on the ballot; case assignment; pro se party; attorney fees.
A federal complaint filed in the Southern District of Ohio on September 27,
2016, alleged that a county board of elections wrongfully rejected the plaintiffs
voter registration application because although the plaintiff had been con-
victed of a crime she was not incarcerated.1 The plaintiffs sentence was stayed
on May 19 by Judge Timothy S. Black while he considered her habeas corpus
petition.2 With her complaint, the plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary re-
straining order or a preliminary injunction.' On the following day, Judge Su-
san J. Dlott transferred the case from her docket to the docket of Judge Michael
R. Barrett.4
Judge Barrett held a status conference on September 30 and set the case for
a second conference on October 4 following additional briefing.5 On October
4, Judge Barrett set the case for hearing on October 6.6 In a 17-page opinion
issued on the day of the hearing, Judge Barrett concluded that the plaintiff was
entitled to register to vote. The parties disagree as to whether a convicted
1. Complaint, Hunter v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections, No. 1:16-cv-962 (S.D. Ohio Sept.
27, 2016), D.E. 2 [hereinafter Voter Registration Complaint].
2. Order, Hunter v. Hamilton Cty. Ct. of Common Pleas, No. 1:16-cv-561 (May 19, 2016),
D.E. 4; see Petition, id. (May 19, 2016), D.E. 1; see also Voter Registration Complaint, supra
note 1, at 2; Opinion, Hunter v. Hamilton Cty., No. 1:15-cv-540 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 15, 2016),
D.E. 96, 2016 WL 4836810 (opinion by Judge Michael R. Barrett dismissing an August 18,
2015, pro se civil action by the voter registration plaintiff against county officials involved with
the prosecution of the plaintiff).
3. Motion, Hunter, No. 1:16-cv-962 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 27, 2016), D.E. 3.
4. Order, id. (Sept. 28, 2016), D.E. 6.
5. Docket Sheet, id. (Sept. 27, 2016) (minutes).
6. Id. (minutes); see Minutes, id. (Oct. 6, 2016), D.E. 18.
7. Opinion, id. (Oct. 6, 2016), D.E. 19.
Federal Judicial Center 7/8/2019](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.congcourts/restelec0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)