Brunner v. Ohio Republican Party
United States Supreme Court
555 U.S. 5, 129 S.Ct. 5 (2008)

- Written by Kelly Simon, JD
Facts
The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) required that state officials cooperate in creating a database through which voter-registration information could be compared with the state’s motor vehicle authority to verify voter-registration application information. In Ohio, the HAVA was implemented by the secretary of state and head of the Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) matching the information in the BMV database with information in the Statewide Voter Registration Database. The policy of the Ohio secretary of state was that when information could not be matched through the databases, relevant county boards of election would be notified and advised that the voter record must be updated. Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner (defendant) and her office stopped providing lists of voter-registration applications that failed to match county election board records. The Ohio Republican Party (ORP) (plaintiff) filed a lawsuit alleging that Brunner’s failure to provide the voter-registration information to county election officials violated the HAVA. The district court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against Brunner. Brunner appealed, requesting a stay of the TRO. A panel of judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit vacated the TRO. ORP requested the case be heard en banc. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reinstated the district court’s TRO. Brunner filed an application to stay the TRO with Justice Stevens.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.