Opinion
Case No. 1:05-CV-212.
November 20, 2006
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the State of Ohio's Motion to Supplement the Record. (Doc. 57.) Cross-motions for summary judgment are currently pending before the Court. Briefing on the motions is complete. The State of Ohio now seeks to supplement the record with "evidence" allegedly supporting its argument that the Ohio Revised Code § 3599.111, which prohibits circulators of any election-related petition from being paid on a per-signature basis, is justified on the grounds that it will help eliminate election fraud. The evidence consists of three newspaper articles concerning possible irregularities in voter registrations and petition circulation in Ohio in the recent November 2006 election.
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that summary judgment motions shall be supported by "pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The newspaper articles proffered by the State of Ohio do not meet the Rule 56 standard. Even a cursory examination makes plain that the newspaper articles constitute classic examples of inadmissible hearsay. Fed.R.Evid. 801, 802.
The newspaper articles would not support the State of Ohio's position even if they were admissible. To begin, allegations of wrongdoing in a newspaper article are not proof of wrongdoing. Also, the articles do not purport to link the alleged wrongdoing to the payment of circulators on a per-signature basis. One newspaper article discusses alleged incidents of false signatures on the petition to place Ohio Issue 4 on the ballot, but it does not indicate whether the signature gatherers were paid on a per-signature basis. A second article concerns allegations that votes were cast in the names of deceased individuals in the Cleveland, Ohio area, but does not discuss who might have committed the fraud or why. Finally, a third newspaper article states that 500 potentially false voter registration cards have been identified in three Ohio counties. But the article also states that the firm that hired at least some of the circulators who turned in the potentially false cards paid the circulators by the hour, not per-signature.
For the foregoing reasons, the State of Ohio's Motion to Supplement the Record (doc. 57) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.