King Lincoln Bronzeville Neighborhood Ass'n v. Blackwell

Ohio 2006), is a court case filed on August 31, 2006[1] to define if the Ohio Secretary of State at the time, Kenneth Blackwell, had violated the Civil Rights Act, first, thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments to the United States Constitution through previous election procedure.

[1] The plaintiffs of the case, Willis Brown, Paul Gregory, Miles Curtiss, Matthew Segal, and Harvey Wasserman[2] filed a civil rights action case on behalf of the King Lincoln Bronzeville Neighborhood Association, the Ohio Voter Rights Alliance for Democracy and the League of Young Voters.

[2] In his response to the amended complaint of the plaintiffs, Blackwell answered by denying allegations that he violated the securities of the Civil Rights Act as enumerated in Paragraph 1 of the amended complaint,[3] that he operated with other parties in Paragraph 2,[3] that he participated in "election fraud, vote dilution, vote suppression, recount fraud and other violations...", that he "arranged for the use of tens of thousands of ballots in high-performance Democratic precincts that were prepunches for a third-party presidential candidate so as to create an overvote and disqualification of such a vote when cast for Kerry"[3] and that he participated in these in an "ongoing conspiracy" [3][4] Several motions were filed during the proceedings of the case.

of State Ken Blackwell and Republican computer consultant Michael Connell, specifying the computer architecture that would allow the White House to have access to Ohio vote counts in real time as they were reported on election night, including the ability to modify those numbers remotely.

[13] The court found that: (1) the Eleventh Amendment precludes subject matter jurisdiction before this Court, and this case is now DISMISSED without prejudice (2) Plaintiffs have failed to provide factual or legal bases for deposing local Chamber of Commerce members, and therefore their request to depose local Chamber of Commerce members is DENIED; and (3) Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate an evidentiary basis for the Secretary to continue storing the 2004 election ballots, and therefore their request to retain the ballots is DENIED.