• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Court Orders Ohio To Restore 3 Days Of Early Voting

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
26,727
12,076
136
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/31/ohio-obama-early-voting-lawsuit_n_1821882.html

A federal judge sided with the Obama campaign and ruled Friday to order Ohio to restore three days of early voting before Election Day, a decision that could affect the outcome of the 2012 election in a key battleground state.

Judge Peter C. Economus of the Southern District Court of Ohio granted an injunction in favor of Obama For America, the Democratic National Committee and the Ohio Democratic Party, which sued Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted to restore in-person voting in the last weekend before the election.

"On balance, the right of Ohio voters to vote in person during the last three days prior to Election Day -- a right previously conferred to all voters by the State -- outweighs the State's interest in setting the 6 p.m. Friday deadline," ruled the court. "The burden on Ohio voters' right to participate in the national and statewide election is great, as evidenced by the statistical analysis offered by Plaintiffs and not disputed by Defendants. Moreover, the State fails to articulate a precise, compelling interest in establishing the 6 p.m. Friday deadline as applied to non-UOCAVA [Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act] voters and has failed to evidence any commitment to the 'exception' it rhetorically extended to UOCAVA voters."

The dispute over military voting spilled into the presidential campaign earlier this month, when the Mitt Romney campaign falsely accused the Obama campaign of trying to curtail rights for military voters, characterizing the lawsuit as an "outrage" and an effort to deprive military voters of extra days to vote.

The Obama campaign lawsuit seeks to expand the voting period for all voters, not to deprive military voters of that opportunity. The judge sided with the Obama camp, calling the early voting restrictions "arbitrary."

The Romney campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

After a chaotic 2004 election, Ohio passed a law allowing early in-person voting on the weekend before the election. In 2008, some 930,000 Ohioans cast votes in that period. Those who did so were more likely to be African-American. A study by Northeast Ohio Voter Advocates found blacks accounted for 56 percent of all in-person early votes in Cuyahoga County, which includes Cleveland, while they accounted for 26 percent of votes overall. In Franklin County, which includes Columbus, African Americans cast 31 percent of early votes and 21 percent of votes overall.

The court ruled that the plaintiffs would suffer "irreparable injury" if early voting was not restored in the three days before election day. The judge also noted the plaintiffs' statistical evidence that low-income and minority voters would be disproportionately affected, which the defense did not counter.

Early voting was curtailed in 2011, when Ohio passed H.B. 194, cutting the number of early voting days and disallowing weekend voting except for military voters. (Subsequent legislative actions have left the weekend voting restrictions in place.) Husted ordered all Ohio counties to allow early voting during weekdays until 7 p.m. in the last two days before the election, but not over the preceding weekend. All voters were given the option of sending in an absentee ballot.
Big victory to protect one of our most precious rights. Hopefully this will start an avalanche of decisions rebuking Republican attampts to disenfranchise voters.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,352
8
0
This just means the GOP will have to send out the fake fliers to confuse the voters 3 days earlier than planned.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
26,727
12,076
136
Because not allow people extra voting time is disenfrancshising them o_O

Or you know they could just vote on election day.
If you are also willing to eliminate absentee ballots we can call it even.

I can say, hey just show up on voting day.


But I'm sure you though it was ok to have early voting for some people and not for others like the secretary of state was doing.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Court Orders Ohio To Restore 3 Days Of Early Voting

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/31/ohio-obama-early-voting-lawsuit_n_1821882.html

Big victory to protect one of our most precious rights.

Hopefully this will start an avalanche of decisions rebuking Republican attampts to disenfranchise voters.
That right doesn't mean anywhere near it used to with Corporations owning both Democrats and Republicans but this is good news.

Republicans will just flood mailboxes with flyers spewing misinformation, lies and wrong voting date anyway though.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Good. One small step for fairness. I also saw the other day that a federal judge just ruled against Texas' voter photo ID law.
 

Farang

Lifer
Jul 7, 2003
10,914
3
0
It seems this is tenuous at best. My understanding is that the ruling basically says any extension of voting access by the state can never be revoked or curtailed. I wonder if it holds up on appeal.

The question is--does the Secretary of State appeal? Probably, but it doesn't seem like a good thing to drag out. The saving money argument goes out the window when you spend a bunch of money in court.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,984
84
91
Good. One small step for fairness. I also saw the other day that a federal judge just ruled against Texas' voter photo ID law.
Damn straight. Any change that serves to lower voter participation levels, especially if it affects certain groups more than others, reeks of disenfranchisement. From what I've seen in many states regarding voting laws and policies lately, it seems that Jim Crow had a few chicks in the nest that just hatched.

Democracy (yes, even the representative form) lives or dies by voter turnout. We should be doing everything we can to increase turnout, not decrease it. Presidential election days should be named national holidays or moved to weekends. They are too damned important to hide in the middle of the workweek when most of us schmucks are chained to our desks, production lines, or clients' whims.
 

MaxPayne63

Senior member
Dec 19, 2011
682
0
0
Damn straight. Any change that serves to lower voter participation levels, especially if it affects certain groups more than others, reeks of disenfranchisement. From what I've seen in many states regarding voting laws and policies lately, it seems that Jim Crow had a few chicks in the nest that just hatched.

Democracy (yes, even the representative form) lives or dies by voter turnout. We should be doing everything we can to increase turnout, not decrease it. Presidential election days should be named national holidays or moved to weekends. They are too damned important to hide in the middle of the workweek when most of us schmucks are chained to our desks, production lines, or clients' whims.
Or we could just restrict voting privileges to current and former boardmembers of Goldman and JPM. Same results, but we'd all be spared six months of insipid campaign theatre.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,313
761
126
It seems this is tenuous at best. My understanding is that the ruling basically says any extension of voting access by the state can never be revoked or curtailed. I wonder if it holds up on appeal.

The question is--does the Secretary of State appeal? Probably, but it doesn't seem like a good thing to drag out. The saving money argument goes out the window when you spend a bunch of money in court.
It has more to do with allowing certain people to vote during the days a hand, while excluding others. They are saying you can't allow for some people to have the extension, and not everyone. Its a matter of everyone or no one. Its not tenuous, its grounded in precedent. No on should have expected the law to be upheld in the manner it was passed. Anyone that did was a delusion fool and/or knows nothing about the law.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
If you are also willing to eliminate absentee ballots we can call it even.

I can say, hey just show up on voting day.


But I'm sure you though it was ok to have early voting for some people and not for others like the secretary of state was doing.
Baring active-duty military* personnel I would agree with this. If you cannot be bothered to make it to the polls on election day then you shouldn't vote.


*It should be obvious why. If you are providing service to the country it seems reasonable to extend extra courtesy to you.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Democracy (yes, even the representative form) lives or dies by voter turnout. We should be doing everything we can to increase turnout, not decrease it. Presidential election days should be named national holidays or moved to weekends. They are too damned important to hide in the middle of the workweek when most of us schmucks are chained to our desks, production lines, or clients' whims.
Why? Wouldn't you prefer quality voters over a large quantity of voters?
 

Farang

Lifer
Jul 7, 2003
10,914
3
0
It has more to do with allowing certain people to vote during the days a hand, while excluding others. They are saying you can't allow for some people to have the extension, and not everyone. Its a matter of everyone or no one. Its not tenuous, its grounded in precedent. No on should have expected the law to be upheld in the manner it was passed. Anyone that did was a delusion fool and/or knows nothing about the law.
That sounds like a stronger case then. They'd have to argue to take away the military extension which won't happen. I was just reading that California law professor's blog and he didn't seem 100% confident it would survive appeal.
 

wirednuts

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2007
7,121
1
0
seeing how voter fraud is virtually non-existent, anytime you hear of someone trying to put limits on the voting process the hair on the back of your neck should stand up. rich white people will always get to vote, just keep that in mind.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
seeing how voter fraud is virtually non-existent, anytime you hear of someone trying to put limits on the voting process the hair on the back of your neck should stand up. rich white people will always get to vote, just keep that in mind.
Anyone who shows up at polls on election day with valid photo ID will always get to vote.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,984
84
91
Why? Wouldn't you prefer quality voters over a large quantity of voters?
How would you define that? Those motivated enough to vote? Sorry, but sometimes the most motivated voters are complete idiots. (Single-issue voters FTL) Landowners? We rejected that requirement for good reason. The rich or at least moderately well off? Nope, we rejected the poll taxes which had the same effect. Those with a job? The unemployed do have a large stake in this country. The unemployed? Same reason. The military? Hoo boy, thats a recipe for totalitarianism if that was ever implemented.

Either you believe in egalitarian democracy or you do not. I normally reject strict binary thinking, but in this instance it is spot on. Once you start restricting which citizens are able to vote by some arbitrary means, that is a slippery slope. It isn't a matter of whether or not I prefer 'quality voters' over quantity of voters. Voting isn't mandatory, nor should it be. I prefer any voters that simply want to vote, period.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,984
84
91
seeing how voter fraud is virtually non-existent, anytime you hear of someone trying to put limits on the voting process the hair on the back of your neck should stand up. rich white people will always get to vote, just keep that in mind.
This. Also, voter fraud is different from registration fraud, which voter ID laws do not address.
 

Ryan

Lifer
Oct 31, 2000
27,518
1
81
Why? Wouldn't you prefer quality voters over a large quantity of voters?
I consider the majority of conservative voters to be without quality.....would it be alright if I could limit their vote?

:awe:
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,994
14,167
136
It has more to do with allowing certain people to vote during the days a hand, while excluding others. They are saying you can't allow for some people to have the extension, and not everyone. Its a matter of everyone or no one. Its not tenuous, its grounded in precedent. No on should have expected the law to be upheld in the manner it was passed. Anyone that did was a delusion fool and/or knows nothing about the law.
Of course, but that never stopped "Conservatives" from trying.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
How would you define that? Those motivated enough to vote? Sorry, but sometimes the most motivated voters are complete idiots. (Single-issue voters FTL) Landowners? We rejected that requirement for good reason. The rich or at least moderately well off? Nope, we rejected the poll taxes which had the same effect. Those with a job? The unemployed do have a large stake in this country. The unemployed? Same reason. The military? Hoo boy, thats a recipe for totalitarianism if that was ever implemented.
Well requiring you to get off your ass every 2-4 years to drive/walk down to your local polling place seems like a pretty good start. If you cannot even be bothered to do that then you should not be voting.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
This. Also, voter fraud is different from registration fraud, which voter ID laws do not address.
It addresses some form of registration fraud. For example it would largely prevent registered illegal immigrants from voting*, since they would lack valid photo ID.

It also makes it harder to register to vote in the wrong location. As your driver's license had your address on it.

*Except in California :D
 

Farang

Lifer
Jul 7, 2003
10,914
3
0
It addresses some form of registration fraud. For example it would largely prevent registered illegal immigrants from voting*, since they would lack valid photo ID.

It also makes it harder to register to vote in the wrong location. As your driver's license had your address on it.

*Except in California :D
My license has the wrong address on it.. it was issued 5 years ago
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY