42 U.S.C. § 15512
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases, 2004–2013 · leading case: Marks v. Gessler, 350 P.3d 883 (Colo. Ct. App. 2013).
Marks v. Gessler, 350 P.3d 883 (Colo. Ct. App. 2013). “2012, conflicted with the federal HAVA standing provision contained in 42 U.S.C. § 15512 (2006), and that the latter provision must control.”
Indiana Prot. & Advocacy Servs. v. Indiana Fam. & Soc. Servs. Admin., 603 F.3d 365 (7th Cir. 2010). “See 42 U.S.C. § 15512 . That statutory provision for administrative remedies further likens the statute in Brunner to the statutes under review in Sandoval and Gonzaga and distinguishes it further from the PAIMI Act, which has no comparable provisions for administrative or…”
Sandusky Cnty. Democratic Party v. Blackwell, 387 F.3d 565 (6th Cir. 2004). “We have reviewed both HAVA’s requirement that those States wishing to receive certain types of federal funding must provide administrative procedures by which citizen complaints may be reviewed and resolved, see 42 U.S.C. § 15512 , and its provision that the U.”
Democratic Nat'l Comm. v. Repub. Nat'l Comm., 673 F.3d 192 (3rd Cir. 2012). “42 U.S.C. § 15512 . The RNC argues that HAVA increases the risk of voter fraud and reduces the risk of vote suppression by allowing voters to cast provisional ballots.”
Ohio Repub. Party v. Brunner, 544 F.3d 711 (6th Cir. 2008). “Despite the fact that HAVA does not create a private right of action, it imposes binding duties on the Secretary of State which are enforceable through alternative means. In states receiving certain federal funding, individuals may challenge actions by the election officer…”
Chavez v. Brewer, 214 P.3d 397 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “” See 42 U.S.C. § 15512 (requiring states receiving federal funding to establish a procedure allowing persons alleging violations of HAVA to file complaints); see also 42 U.”
Cnty. of Nassau v. New York, 724 F. Supp. 2d 295 (E.D.N.Y 2010). “42 U.S.C. § 15512 . 2 2.ERMA On July 12, 2005, the New York State Legislature passed the Election Reform and Modernization Act of 2005 (“ERMA”).”
Taylor v. Onorato, 428 F. Supp. 2d 384 (W.D. Pa. 2006). “42 U.S.C. § 15512 . The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has established such a procedure.”
Ind. Prot. & Adv. Servs. v. Ind. Fam. & Soc., 603 F.3d 365 (7th Cir. 2010). “See 42 U.S.C. § 15512 . That statutory provision for administrative remedies further likens the statute in Brunner to the statutes under review in Sandoval and Gonzaga and distinguishes it further from the PAIMI Act, which has no comparable provisions for administrative or…”
Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 585 F.3d 310 (7th Cir. 2009). “"); 42 U.S.C. § 15512 (a)(2)(C). (Help America Vote Act) ("Any complaint filed under the procedures shall be in writing and notarized, .”
Sandusky Cnty. v. Blackwell, 339 F. Supp. 2d 975 (N.D. Ohio 2004). “Under § 15512, the state may establish administrative procedures to review and resolve citizen complaints.”
Ohio Repub. Party v. Brunner, 582 F. Supp. 2d 957 (S.D. Ohio 2008). “Defendant argues that the statute expressly disavows any such right, citing 42 U.S.C. § 15512 , which requires states to establish an administrative complaint procedure, and 42 U.”
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.