CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 10/4/2023 1

Widespread Voter-Registration Challenges 

Miller v. Blackwell (Susan J. Dlott, S.D. Ohio 1:04-cv-735) 

One week before the 2004 general election, the Democratic Party 

filed a federal complaint challenging widespread voter-registration 

challenges—approximately 22,000—by the Republican Party based 

on returned mail. The court enjoined administrative hearings on 

the challenges through the election. After the election, the plaintiffs 

dropped the case. 

Subject: Nullifying registrations. Topics: Registration challenges; 

intervention; class action; enforcing orders. 

One week before the 2004 general election, the Ohio Democratic Party and 

two voters filed a federal class action in the Southern District of Ohio’s Cincinnati courthouse against Ohio’s secretary of state and the election officials 

of six counties—three in the Southern District and three in the Northern 

District—challenging extensive challenges by the Republican Party to voter 

eligibility based on returned mail.1

 With the complaint, the plaintiffs filed a 

motion for a temporary restraining order.2

On the case’s second day, two persons who signed challenges moved to 

intervene.3 At 12:31 p.m., Judge Susan J. Dlott held a proceeding in chambers 

with counsel for the plaintiffs present and counsel for the defendants appearing by telephone.4

 The defendants confirmed that they had received a total of 

over 22,000 challenges—from 43 to over 17,000 per county—and that they 

had challenge hearings scheduled from that day to the following Saturday, 

depending upon county.5 After a recess of a bit over two hours, Judge Dlott 

reconvened the parties at 3:45 and announced that she would grant the temporary restraining order against acting on the challenges and hold an evidentiary hearing Friday morning on whether to follow up with a preliminary injunction.6

 A written order followed later that day.7 The court of appeals declined to stay the order.8

1. Complaint, Miller v. Blackwell, No. 1:04-cv-735 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 26, 2004), D.E. 1 

(Franklin, Lawrence, and Scioto are in the Southern District; Cuyahoga, Medina, and Trumbull are in the Northern District); see Edward B. Foley, The Promise and Problems of Provisional Voting, 73 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1193, 1199 (2005); Scott Hiaasen, Ohio GOP Challenges 

35,000 on Voter Rolls, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Oct. 23, 2004, at A1; Mark Niquette, GOP 

Challenges Voters, Columbus Dispatch, Oct. 23, 2004, at 1A. See generally Ari Berman, Give 

Us the Ballot 218–20 (2015). 

2. Temporary Restraining Order Motion, Miller, No. 1:04-cv-735 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 26, 

2004), D.E. 2. 

3. Challengers Motion to Intervene, id. (Oct. 27, 2004), D.E. 5; Transcript at 4, id. (Oct. 

27, 2004, filed Oct. 29, 2004), D.E. 18 [hereinafter Oct. 27, 2004, Transcript]. 

4. Oct. 27, 2004, Transcript, supra note 3, at 1–2; see Ann Gerhart, Up to the Challenge, 

Wash. Post, Oct. 29, 2004, at C1. 

5. Oct. 27, 2004, Transcript, supra note 3, at 6–9. 

6. Id. at 41–63; see Jo Becker, Judge Rebuffs GOP Effort to Contest Voters in Ohio, Wash. 

Post, Oct. 28, 2004, at A1; James Dao, G.O.P. Bid to Contest Registrations Is Blocked, N.Y. 

Times, Oct. 28, 2004, at A25; Kevin Eigelbach, Voter Hearings Halted by Ruling, Cincinnati 
Widespread Voter-Registration Challenges 

2 Federal Judicial Center 10/4/2023 

Judge Dlott certified the individual plaintiffs as representatives of a class 

of 

all persons who have registered to vote in the State of Ohio whose eligibility 

to vote was challenged by the Ohio Republican Party’s voter challenges 

submitted on October 22, 2004 and whose eligibility their County Board of 

Elections intended to challenge before the General Election to be held on 

November 2, 2004.9

Judge Dlott determined that the method of challenge combined with the 

methods of resolution of so many voter registration challenges so close to the 

election created “grave due process concerns” with respect to the fundamental right to vote.10 She also granted the challengers’ motion to intervene.11 On 

Thursday, she granted the State of Ohio’s motion to intervene.12

On Friday, she allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to include 

all of Ohio’s eighty-eight counties, and she extended the temporary restraining order to all of the counties.13 There was evidence that one county ignored 

the temporary restraining order after receiving actual, but not official, notice 

of it, but the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of contempt.14

Judge Dlott conducted the preliminary-injunction hearing on Friday15

and Monday.16 The temporary restraining order remained in effect through 

the election.17 On April 28, 2005, Judge Dlott granted the plaintiffs’ motion 

to dismiss the action on the grounds that their concerns were moot now that 

the election was over.18 Ohio’s appeal was settled after briefing.19

Post, Oct. 28, 2004, at A1; Edward B. Foley, The Future of Bush v. Gore?, 68 Ohio St. L.J. 925, 

991 (2007); Daniel P. Tokaji, Early Returns on Election Reform: Discretion, Disenfranchisement, and the Help America Vote Act, 73 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1206, 1235–36, 1243–44 (2005). 

7. Miller v. Blackwell, 348 F. Supp. 2d 916 (S.D. Ohio 2004); Temporary Restraining Order, Miller, No. 1:04-cv-735 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 27, 2004), D.E. 11; see Mark Niquette, Voter 

Challenges Halted, Columbus Dispatch, Oct. 28, 2004, at 1A; Bill Sloat, Judge Blocks Voter 

Eligibility Hearings, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Oct. 28, 2004, at A1. 

8. Miller v. Blackwell, 388 F.3d 546 (6th Cir. 2004); see Jo Becker, Ruling on Ohio Voter 

Challenges Is Upheld, Wash. Post, Oct. 30, 2004, at A9; Andrew Welsh-Huggins, Restart of 

Voter Hearings Rejected, Cincinnati Post, Oct. 29, 2004, at A11. 

9. Miller, 348 F. Supp. 2d at 918 n.1. 

10. Id. at 921. 

11. Id. at 917, 922–23. 

12. Order, Miller, No. 1:04-cv-735 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 28, 2004), D.E. 17. 

13. Order, id. (Oct. 29, 2004), D.E. 24; see Amended Complaint, id. (Oct. 29, 2004), D.E. 

25; see also Bill Sloat, Judge Orders Halt to County Hearings Challenging Voters, Cleveland 

Plain Dealer, Oct. 30, 2004, at A1. 

14. Order, Miller, No. 1:04-cv-735 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 1, 2004), D.E. 33. 

15. Transcript, id. (Oct. 29, 2004, filed Jan. 14, 2005), D.E. 47. 

16. Transcript, id. (Nov. 1, 2004, filed Dec. 20, 2004), D.E. 45. 

17. Order, id. (Apr. 28, 2005), D.E. 51. 

18. Id. 

19. Docket Sheet, Miller v. Blackwell, No. 05-3773 (6th Cir. June 23, 2005).