Misplaced Pages

Moss v. Bush: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:26, 19 December 2004 editJguk (talk | contribs)15,849 edits rewrite← Previous edit Latest revision as of 02:45, 13 September 2023 edit undoSer Amantio di Nicolao (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators6,251,764 edits →top: add "use mdy dates" templateTag: AWB 
(246 intermediate revisions by 56 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}}
{{current}}
{{disputed}} {{italic title}}
'''''Moss v. Bush''''' (] Case Nos. 04-2055 and 04-2088) was a ] filed by 37 voters in the ] of ], challenging Ohio's certified ] votes in the ]. It was filed on 13 December 2004, and dismissed at the ]s' request following the acceptance of Ohio's votes by the ] and the ] on January 6, 2005. The suit was headed by ] of the ].


Following the dismissal, Arnebeck's group filed a motion to intervene in a federal case brought on ] by the ] against ] ].<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/docs/OhioDems/OD20.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=2006-05-31 |archive-date=2006-09-06 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060906122305/http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/docs/OhioDems/OD20.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref> That motion was opposed by the Ohio Democratic Party<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/docs/OhioDems/OD21.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=2006-05-31 |archive-date=2006-09-06 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060906121920/http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/docs/OhioDems/OD21.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref> and ultimately denied.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/docs/OhioDems/order82605a.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=2006-05-31 |archive-date=2006-09-06 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060906122226/http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/docs/OhioDems/order82605a.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref>

'''Moss v Bush''' is a ] in the ] that was filed in the ] on ] ] (Supreme Court of Ohio Case No. (R. C. 3515.08)). The legal suit is headed by ] of the , representing a group of thirty-seven Ohio-resident voters.


==Details of the case== ==Details of the case==


The case challenged Ohio's certification of its electoral votes, which had been awarded to ] and his running mate, ], the candidates on the ] ticket. The plaintiffs alleged that there had been widespread systematic election fraud that altered the outcome of the election. On that basis, the suit asked the courts to set aside the certified results, and, possibly, award the state's electoral votes to ] and his running mate, ], the candidates on the ] ticket. If successful, shifting Ohio's 20 electoral votes in the 2004 presidential election would have had the effect of shifting the overall election from Bush to Kerry. The case was ultimately dismissed. ''See generally'' ].
The case questions the state of ]'s certification of the votes made by the members of the US presidential . Ohio's electoral college voters have all voted for the Republican party candidates ], the Republican party presidential candidate, and ], the Republican party vice-presidential candidate. Ohio law permits the state Supreme Court to review elections in such cases, but there is no provision for the courts to award electoral colleges votes to any candidate. The first time the case was filed, it also contained a challenge against another Ohio State election.


===Litigation===
According to statements made by Mr. Arnebeck, he will ask the courts to set aside the results and possibly declare ], the Democratic party presidential candidate, and ], the Democratic party vice-presidential candidate, the winners of Ohio's presidential election, on the basis of widespread systematic election fraud that altered the outcome of the election. He claims to have sufficient evidence to prove the allegations. The mainstream media have, however, reported that it has little or no chance of success.


Following the November election, Ohio's electors were scheduled to meet and cast their votes for President Bush on 13 December 2004. On that same day, various Ohio citizens (the "Contestors") filed an Election Contest Petition<ref>{{cite web|url=http://freepress.org/images/departments/Election_Contest_1.pdf|title=VERIFIED ELECTION CONTEST PETITION IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Case No. (R. C. 3515.08)|via=]}}</ref> alleging fraud in the conduct of the Ohio election and a Motion for ] and ]<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/docs/ohio/MossvBush/TRO.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=2004-12-26 |archive-date=2005-03-01 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050301204733/http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/docs/ohio/MossvBush/TRO.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref> seeking to prevent Ohio's electors from meeting or casting their vote before completion of the Election Contest.
==Consequences of failure to certify==


On 16 December 2005, Justices' ] and ], in separate opinions, dismissed ''Moss v. Bush I'' without prejudice to refiling the action as two separate cases. Both Justice Moyer and Justice O'Connell ruled that Ohio election law did not permit Contestors to challenge the election of two different officials in a single Petition.<ref> {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050418113805/http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2004/2004-ohio-6792.pdf |date=2005-04-18 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2004/2004-ohio-6794.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=2006-06-01 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071127064014/http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2004/2004-ohio-6794.pdf |archive-date=2007-11-27 }}</ref>
Without that certification, the ] would reject ]'s votes under the provisions of Title 3 of the ], which in the circumstances of the ] election, would leave no ] with the 271 electoral college votes required to win. The presidential election would then be decided by the Republican-controlled ], with the vice-presidential election being decided by the Republican-controlled Senate. The expectation would be that they would support the Republican party candidates, ] and ], who are already generally accepted to have been the winner of the election.


⚫ 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 ] presidential ticket the rightful winner of Ohio's electoral votes.
==The first hearing==


On 12 January 2005, ''Moss v. Bush'' was dismissed at the Contestors' request.<ref name=autogenerated1>{{cite web |url=http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2005/2005-ohio-71.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=2006-05-30 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071127064012/http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2005/2005-ohio-71.pdf |archive-date=2007-11-27 }}</ref>
On ], the case was thrown out on the technicality that two races were disputed in the same legal challenge. One race was for Ohio's electors in the presidential electoral college. The other was the election of the judge who heard the first filing himself: Ohio Supreme Court Justice ].


==The second hearing== ===Motion for sanctions===


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.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/docs/ohio/MossvBush/AGSanctionsMotion.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=2005-02-17 |archive-date=2005-04-18 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050418113802/http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/docs/ohio/MossvBush/AGSanctionsMotion.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref>
⚫ On ], the case was refiled, with it now referring only to the election of Ohio's electors for the presidential electoral college. A request that the Court declares the ] presidential ticket the rightful winner of Ohio's electoral votes was also made, although even if the Court acceded to such a request it would have no legal effect.


On 19 May 2005, Chief Justice Moyer denied the motion for sanctions.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2005/2005-ohio-2419.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=2006-05-30 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051226080759/http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2005/2005-ohio-2419.pdf |archive-date=2005-12-26 }}</ref> Justice Moyer concluded that, although "he Contestors indeed made multiple allegations in the complaint that are, at best, highly improbable and potentially defamatory, inflammatory, and devoid of logic" (Paragraph 4), and "espite the apparently scurrilous nature of most of these allegations," (Paragraph 16), sanctions were not appropriate under Ohio law for two reasons. First, Justice Moyer concluded that unlike civil litigation, the election contest statutes of Ohio do not permit sanctions for meritless charges. (Paragraphs 17-24). Second, because the Contestors dismissed their suit before evidence was gathered, Justice Moyer concluded that even if sanctions were permitted by law, there was not enough evidence before the Court to issue sanctions. (Paragraph 25).
== See also ==

⚫ ]
===''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''''', ] Case No. 04-2106. Justice Maureen O'Connor was designated to preside over the matter by Governor ].

On 28 December 2004, Justice O'Connor issued an order stating that under Ohio Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), the Contestors were required to plead the alleged acts of fraud in the election for Chief Justice with greater particularity. She ordered that Contestors do so by 7 January 2005, allowed their opponents until 14 January 2005 to respond, and stayed any discovery proceeding pending those pleadings.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2004/2004-ohio-7079.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=2004-12-28 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050115095334/http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2004/2004-ohio-7079.pdf |archive-date=2005-01-15 }}</ref>

On 12 January 2005, ''Moss v. Moyer'' was dismissed at the request of the Contestors.<ref name=autogenerated1 /> <!-- dead link: -->


==References== ==References==
<references />

== Other litigation documents ==
===''Moss v. Bush''===
*
*
* (filed 2004.12.17)
* {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050329211535/http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/docs/ohio/MossvBush/contest2hearing.pdf |date=2005-03-29 }} (filed 2004.12.17)
* (decided 2004.12.22)
* (decided 2004.12.29)
* (decided 2004.12.29)
*Depositions: (submitted 2004.12.31)
** - Professor of statistics, Institute of Government and Public Affairs, University of Illinois in Chicago
** - Professor of sociology, University of Pennsylvania in Edinburg and part-time pastor
** - Professor, Doctor of Geomorphology, Master of History, Master of Geography, and Bachelor of Politics
*


===''Moss v. Moyer''===
*
* *
* * (filed 2004.12.20)
*Motion for admission ] (decided 2004.12.27)
*
*
*
*


⚫ {{2004 U.S. presidential election}}
==Further reading==
:''For legal documents and information, see .''


{{DEFAULTSORT:Moss V. Bush}}
:''''''
]
]
]
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 02:45, 13 September 2023

Moss v. Bush (Supreme Court of Ohio Case Nos. 04-2055 and 04-2088) was a lawsuit filed by 37 voters in the U.S. state of Ohio, challenging Ohio's certified electoral college votes in the 2004 U.S. presidential election. It was filed on 13 December 2004, and dismissed at the plaintiffs' request following the acceptance of Ohio's votes by the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate on January 6, 2005. The suit was headed by Cliff Arnebeck of the Alliance for Democracy.

Following the dismissal, Arnebeck's group 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. That motion was opposed by the Ohio Democratic Party and ultimately denied.

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. 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. If successful, shifting Ohio's 20 electoral votes in the 2004 presidential election would have had the effect of shifting the overall election from Bush to Kerry. The case was ultimately dismissed. See generally 2004 United States presidential election, results.

Litigation

Following the November election, Ohio's electors were scheduled to meet and cast their votes for President Bush on 13 December 2004. On that same day, various Ohio citizens (the "Contestors") filed an Election Contest Petition alleging fraud in the conduct of the Ohio election and a Motion for Temporary restraining order and Preliminary injunction seeking to prevent Ohio's electors from meeting or casting their vote before completion of the Election Contest.

On 16 December 2005, Justices' Thomas Moyer and Maureen O'Connell, in separate opinions, dismissed Moss v. Bush I without prejudice to refiling the action as two separate cases. Both Justice Moyer and Justice O'Connell ruled that Ohio election law did not permit Contestors to challenge the election of two different officials in a single Petition.

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 12 January 2005, Moss v. Bush was dismissed at the Contestors' request.

Motion for sanctions

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.

On 19 May 2005, Chief Justice Moyer denied the motion for sanctions. Justice Moyer concluded that, although "he Contestors indeed made multiple allegations in the complaint that are, at best, highly improbable and potentially defamatory, inflammatory, and devoid of logic" (Paragraph 4), and "espite the apparently scurrilous nature of most of these allegations," (Paragraph 16), sanctions were not appropriate under Ohio law for two reasons. First, Justice Moyer concluded that unlike civil litigation, the election contest statutes of Ohio do not permit sanctions for meritless charges. (Paragraphs 17-24). Second, because the Contestors dismissed their suit before evidence was gathered, Justice Moyer concluded that even if sanctions were permitted by law, there was not enough evidence before the Court to issue sanctions. (Paragraph 25).

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, Ohio Supreme Court Case No. 04-2106. Justice Maureen O'Connor was designated to preside over the matter by Governor Bob Taft.

On 28 December 2004, Justice O'Connor issued an order stating that under Ohio Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), the Contestors were required to plead the alleged acts of fraud in the election for Chief Justice with greater particularity. She ordered that Contestors do so by 7 January 2005, allowed their opponents until 14 January 2005 to respond, and stayed any discovery proceeding pending those pleadings.

On 12 January 2005, Moss v. Moyer was dismissed at the request of the Contestors.

References

  1. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on September 6, 2006. Retrieved May 31, 2006.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  2. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on September 6, 2006. Retrieved May 31, 2006.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  3. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on September 6, 2006. Retrieved May 31, 2006.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  4. "VERIFIED ELECTION CONTEST PETITION IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Case No. (R. C. 3515.08)" (PDF) – via Freepress.org.
  5. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on March 1, 2005. Retrieved December 26, 2004.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  6. Moss v. Bush Archived 2005-04-18 at the Wayback Machine
  7. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on November 27, 2007. Retrieved June 1, 2006.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  8. ^ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on November 27, 2007. Retrieved May 30, 2006.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  9. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on April 18, 2005. Retrieved February 17, 2005.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  10. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on December 26, 2005. Retrieved May 30, 2006.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  11. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on January 15, 2005. Retrieved December 28, 2004.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)

Other litigation documents

Moss v. Bush

Moss v. Moyer

(← 2000) 2004 United States presidential election (2008 →)
Republican Party
Candidates
Democratic Party
Candidates
Controversies
Third-party and independent candidates
Constitution Party
Green Party
Other candidates
Sheila Bilyeu
Peter Camejo
Paul Glover
Kent Mesplay
Lorna Salzman
Libertarian Party
Other candidates
Gary Nolan
Aaron Russo
Personal Choice Party
Nominee
Charles Jay
VP nominee
Marilyn Chambers
Prohibition Party
Nominee
Gene Amondson
Alternate nominee
Earl Dodge
Reform Party
Nominee
Ralph Nader (campaign)
Socialist Party
Other candidates
Eric Chester
Socialist Workers Party
Nominee
Róger Calero
Alternate nominee
James Harris
VP nominee
Arrin Hawkins
Workers World Party
Nominee
John Parker
VP nominee
Teresa Gutierrez
Independents and other candidates
Thomas Harens
Tom Laughlin
Ralph Nader (campaign)
Leonard Peltier
Joe Schriner
Other 2004 elections
House
Senate
Gubernatorial
Categories: