42 U.S.C. § 15482
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 42
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2004–2024 · leading case: Florida State Conf. of the Nat'l Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Browning, 522 F.3d 1153 (11th Cir. 2008).
Florida State Conf. of the Nat'l Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Browning, 522 F.3d 1153 (11th Cir. 2008). “See 42 U.S.C. § 15482 (a). Once the provisional ballot is cast, the election official is to determine whether the individual is "eligible under State law to vote," and the official must count the ballot if the voter is eligible.”
Sandusky Cnty. Democratic Party v. Blackwell, 387 F.3d 565 (6th Cir. 2004). “42 U.S.C. § 15482 . In essence, HAVA’s provisional voting section is designed to recognize, and compensate for, the improbability of “perfect knowledge” on the part of local election officials.”
Florida Democratic Party v. Hood, 342 F. Supp. 2d 1073 (N.D. Fla. 2004). “Plaintiff seeks relief under a section of the Help America Vote Act (“HAVA”), 42 U.S.C. § 15482 , that gives voters in federal elections a right to cast “provisional” ballots.”
Bay Cnty. Democratic Party v. Land, 347 F. Supp. 2d 404 (E.D. Mich. 2004). “” 42 U.S.C. § 15482 (a), (d). That Section provides: If an individual declares that such individual is a registered voter in the jurisdiction in which the individual desires to *413 vote and that the individual is eligible to vote in an election for Federal office, but the name…”
League of Women Voters of North Carolina v. North Carolina, 769 F.3d 224 (4th Cir. 2014). “See 42 U.S.C. § 15482 (a). However, such provisional ballots are only required to be counted “in accordance with State law.”
Ohio Ex Rel. Skaggs v. Brunner, 549 F.3d 468 (6th Cir. 2008). “See 42 U.S.C. § 15482 (a); Ohio Rev.Code Ann.”
Ohio Repub. Party v. Brunner, 544 F.3d 711 (6th Cir. 2008). “2004), we held that another provision of HAVA dealing with provisional ballots, 42 U.S.C. § 15482 (a) was intended to benefit individuals, and it would seem strange to infer that Congress wished to pull apart the threads of HAVA by permitting individual enforcement of some…”
Proj. Vote/Voting for Am., Inc. v. Long, 682 F.3d 331 (4th Cir. 2012). “42 U.S.C. § 15482 (a)(5)(B). The provision cited by appellants, HAVA Section 302(a), provides in relevant part: “The appropriate State or local official shall establish and maintain reasonable procedures necessary to protect the security, confidentiality, and integrity of…”
Marks v. Gessler, 350 P.3d 883 (Colo. Ct. App. 2013). “Blackwell, the Sixth Cireuit Court of Appeals held that 42 U.S.C. §15482 (a)(2) (2006) of HAVA creates a federal right to cast a provisional ballot, which is enforceable under $1983.”
Democratic Nat'l Comm. v. Repub. Nat'l Comm., 671 F. Supp. 2d 575 (D.N.J. 2009). “His testimony to that effect focused on two developments: (1) the HAVA’s requirement that individuals be allowed to cast a provisional ballot (which is later examined by election officials to determine its validity), see 42 U.S.C. § 15482 (a), and (2) the adoption of alternative…”
State of South Carolina v. United States of Am., 898 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2012). “See 42 U.S.C. § 15482 (a). As in Act R54, the HAVA provisional ballot process entails both casting a provisional ballot and executing a written affirmation before an election official at the polling place.”
Broyles v. Texas, 618 F. Supp. 2d 661 (S.D. Tex. 2009). “Whether Texas and Fort Bend County Can be Liable Under the Help America Vote Act for the Alleged Failure to Offer Provisional Ballots The plaintiffs also argue that Texas and Fort Bend County violated HAVA by failing to make provisional ballots available to registered voters…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.