10/2004 Lawsuit: Democratic Party vs. Blackwell

[sabra]

<<SNIP

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/election2004/sandblack102004ord.pdf

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

The Sandusky County Case No. 3:04CV7582

Democratic Party, et al.,
Plaintiff

v.
J. Kenneth Blackwell,
Defendant

In prior proceedings in this case, I have: 1) held that Directive 2004-33, issued by the defendant on September 16, 2004, violate the provisional voting provisions of HAVA, 42 U.S.C. § 15482, and
issued injunctive relief requiring the defendant to file a HAVA-compliant directive with this Court (Doc.
26);

2) denied the defendant’s motion to stay the mandate of the injunction pending his appeal of the injunction (Doc. 35); and 3) issued a supplemental injunction directing defendant to file alternative versions of HAVA-compliant directives (Doc. 39).

....

That motion contends that the defendant has failed to comply with this Court’s order to
file a HAVA-compliant revised directive.

>>

What ever happened with this lawsuit?

[jamboi]

1. When was it filed and can you translate it into english 4 us? n/t

[sabra]

2. Essentially it is saying

That Blackwell had to get his act together with provisional ballots. In regards to letting voters know their options and giving directions, especially when their eligibility was in questions. I don't think he took the necessary steps to fulfill those requirements. There for, wouldn't he need to face some consequences?