CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 6/24/2023 1

Overly Burdensome Voter-Registration Rules 

Project Vote v. Blackwell 

(Kathleen M. O’Malley, N.D. Ohio 1:06-cv-1628) 

In July 2006, public-interest organizations challenged new voterregistration laws as overly burdensome, and the court enjoined the 

new laws. The court awarded the plaintiffs $321,485.28 in attorney 

fees and costs. 

Subject: Registration procedures. Topics: Registration 

procedures; attorney fees. 

On July 6, 2006, six public-interest organizations and three individuals filed a 

federal complaint in the Northern District of Ohio, challenging recently enacted voter-registration laws and interpretations of those laws by Ohio’s secretary of state.1

 The core allegation was that the new registration rules would 

“severely impact third-party voter-registration efforts in Ohio and hinder 

low-income, minority, and disabled citizens from registering to vote.”2

 One 

week later, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.3

The court assigned the case to Judge Kathleen M. O’Malley.4 She learned 

that for injunction cases involving elections, it was usually very important for 

boards of elections to participate.5 They are the experts on how elections are 

conducted, and they can provide important feasibility information about 

possible remedies.6

 The parties agreed that the boards should be included, 

and Judge O’Malley gave the boards thirty days to prepare for their participation.7

 On August 2, she set a case-management conference for August 17.8 At 

the conference, she set a preliminary-injunction hearing for September 1.9

After the hearing, Judge O’Malley orally issued a preliminary injunction.10 When time was of the essence, she would sometimes rule from the 

bench and later provide a detailed written opinion to facilitate possible ap1. Complaint, Project Vote v. Blackwell, No. 1:06-cv-1628 (N.D. Ohio July 6, 2006), D.E. 

1; Project Vote v. Blackwell, 455 F. Supp. 2d 694, 696–97 (N.D. Ohio 2006). 

2. Project Vote, 455 F. Supp. 2d at 697. 

3. Preliminary-Injunction Motion, Project Vote, No. 1:06-cv-1628 (N.D. Ohio July 13, 

2006), D.E. 3; Project Vote, 455 F. Supp. 2d at 697. 

4. Docket Sheet, Project Vote, No. 1:06-cv-1628 (N.D. Ohio July 6, 2006). 

Tim Reagan interviewed Judge O’Malley for this report by telephone on July 19, 2012. 

Judge O’Malley was elevated to a seat on the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 

December 27, 2010, and she retired on March 11, 2022. Federal Judicial Center Biographical 

Directory of Article III Federal Judges, www.fjc.gov/history/judges. 

5. Interview with Hon. Kathleen M. O’Malley, July 19, 2012. 

6. Id. 

7. Id. 

8. Order, Project Vote, No. 1:06-cv-1628 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 2, 2006), D.E. 14; see Project 

Vote, 455 F. Supp. 2d at 697. 

9. Order, Project Vote, No. 1:06-cv-1628 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 17, 2006), D.E. 22; see Project 

Vote, 455 F. Supp. 2d at 697. 

10. Project Vote, 455 F. Supp. 2d at 697–98. 
Overly Burdensome Voter-Registration Rules 

2 Federal Judicial Center 6/24/2023 

pellate review.11 The written opinion came on September 8.12 In essence, she 

found that extra burdens placed on persons who were compensated for registering voters were not sufficiently justified, and a requirement that persons 

registering another person personally submit the registration card to an election office improperly chilled voter registration.13 Ohio had backed away 

from its defense of the most problematic provisions and elected not to appeal 

the injunction against the others.14

On February 11, 2008, after additional briefing, Judge O’Malley converted her preliminary injunction to summary judgment.15 On March 31, 2009, 

she awarded the plaintiffs $321,485.28 in attorney fees and costs.16

11. Interview with Hon. Kathleen M. O’Malley, July 19, 2012. 

12. Project Vote, 455 F. Supp. 2d 694; see Daniel P. Tokaji, Voter Registration and Election 

Reform, 17 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 453, 487–88 (2008). 

13. Project Vote, 455 F. Supp. 2d at 702–07; see Tokaji, supra note 12, at 487–88. 

14. Interview with Hon. Kathleen M. O’Malley, July 19, 2012. 

15. Opinion, Project Vote v. Blackwell, No. 1:06-cv-1628 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 11, 2008), D.E. 

59, 2008 WL 397585 (noting that the parties provided very light additional briefing). 

16. Opinion, id. (Mar. 31, 2009), D.E. 69, 2009 WL 917737.