Brunner v. Ohio Republican Party
U.S.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2026Barrios D. Ariz.
- 2026Wisconsin Voter Alliance v. Don M. Millis 7th Cir.
- 2025D. McLinko v. Com., DOS and Al Schmidt, Secretary of State (OGC) Pa. Commw. Ct.
- 2024Wisconsin Voter Alliance v. Millis E.D. Wis.
- 2023Arkansas Voter Integrity Initiative Inc v. Thurston E.D. Ark.
- 2023Oels v. Dunleavy D. Alaska
- 2022Roberts v. Caskey D. Kan.
- 2021Bristol Reg'l Women's Center v. Herbert Slatery, III 6th Cir.
- 2021Gold v. Sandoval D. Nev.
- 2018Ohlendorf v. United Food & Commercial Workers Int'l Union 6th Cir.
Cites 2 cases
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
BRUNNER, OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE v. OHIO REPUBLICAN PARTY et al.
On October 9, 2008, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio entered a temporary restraining order (TRO) directing Jennifer Brunner, the Ohio Secretary of State (Secretary), to update Ohio’s Statewide Voter Registration Database to comply with §303 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), 116 Stat. 1708,42 U. S. C. § 15483(a)(5)(B)(i) (2000 ed., Supp. V). The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied the Secretary’s motion to vacate the TRO. The Secretary has filed an application to stay the TRO with Justice Stevens as Circuit Justice for the Sixth Circuit, and he has referred the matter to the Court. The Secretary argues both that the District Court had no jurisdiction to enter the TRO and that its ruling on the merits was erroneous. We express no opinion on the question whether HAVA is being properly implemented. Respondents, however, are not sufficiently likely to prevail on the question whether Congress has authorized the District Court to enforce § 303 in an action brought by a private litigant to justify the issuance of a TRO. See Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U. S. 273, 283 (2002); Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U. S. 275, 286 (2001). We therefore grant the application for a stay and vacate the TRO.
It is so ordered.
Section 15483(a)(5)(B)(i) states, in relevant part:
“The chief State election official and the official responsible for the State motor vehicle authority of a State shall enter into an agreement to match information in the database of the statewide voter registration system with information in the database of the motor vehicle authority to the extent required to enable each such official to verify the accuracy of the information provided on applications for voter registration.”