Voting Rights Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-110, 79 State 445 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§1971, 1973 to 1973bb-1 (1994)). Further the Act prohibits discriminatory measures passed by state and local governments that minimize minority citizens’ right to vote.

Ruling in a separate case, as to which NEOCH was not a party, the Ohio Supreme Court held that the First Category of Disputed Ballots should not be counted. That ruling conflicts with this Court’s Orders issued in the above-captioned case on October 24, 2008 (“ First Federal Court Order” ) and October 27, 2008 (“ Second Federal Court Order” ), as well as with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.1 1 NEOCH believes that the State Court Order and Directive 2008-118 also conflict with the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1971 (prohibiting ballots from being discarded because of immaterial errors or omissions), as the omission of the voter’s signature in the affirmation cannot be “ material” given the General Assembly’s explicit statement that ballots with omitted signatures can be counted so long as the voter’s name is recorded in the affirmation. See R.C. 3505.

17 Dockets.Justia.com 2 Before the certification of the election results, a statewide hand count of the voter verified paper trail, the provisional ballots, and the absentee ballots of a random sample of 3% of the voting precincts. and ordering for circulation of this notice of injunction to the Board of Elections officials in all eighty-eight counties and posting of this notice at all polling places; and appointing a special prosecutor pursuant to F.R.Crim.P.42(b) to prosecute criminal contempt of this injunctive relief on the grounds that the Defendant Blackwell has and continues to violate the Plaintiffs’ rights under the Civil Rights Act of 1870 and 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3); The Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C § 1971(a) & (b); Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973(a); 42 U.S.C. § 1988a; the First, Fourth, Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Nineteenth and Twenty-Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d; and the Constitution and laws of the State of Ohio. In support of this Motion, the Plaintiffs rely upon their Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and supporting material filed concurrently therewith.

In support of their motion, plaintiffs state as follows: 1. In this action, plaintiffs allege that Springfield’s at-large voting system with its winner-take-all method violates of Section 2 of theVoting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1971, et seq. because it unlawfully dilutes the ability of Springfield’s Hispanic and Black/African- American voters to participate in the electoral process and to elect representatives of their choice. Case 3:05-cv-30080-MAP Document 13 Filed 07/15/2005 Page 1 of 4 2 2.