A particularly ugly lie is being spread by the right wing noise machine, especially the Republican Ministry of Propaganda, Faux Noise. They are saying that Barack Obama is attempting to take away voting privileges from the military though his lawsuit in Ohio. Nothing could be further from the truth. All Ohioans used to have early voting privileges on the Saturday, Sunday and Monday before the election day. Ohio Republicans took early voting away from everyone except active military. Obama’s lawsuit has no effect at all on early voting for active military. It merely seeks to restore it to everyone else too. Ari Berman covered this well.
On Election Day 2004, long lines and widespread electoral dysfunctional marred the results of the presidential election in Ohio, whose electoral votes ended up handing George W. Bush a second term. “The misallocation of voting machines led to unprecedented long lines that disenfranchised scores, if not hundreds of thousands, of predominantly minority and Democratic voters,” found a post-election report by Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee. According to one survey, 174,000 Ohioans, 3 percent of the electorate, left their polling place without voting because of the interminable wait. (Bush won the state by only 118,000 votes).
After 2004, Ohio reformed its electoral process by adding thirty-five days of early voting before Election Day, which led to a much smoother voting experience in 2008. The Obama campaign used this extra time to successfully mobilize its supporters, building a massive lead among early voters than John McCain could not overcome on Election Day.
In response to the 2008 election results, Ohio Republicans drastically curtailed the early voting period in 2012 from thirty-five to eleven days, with no voting on the Sunday before the election, when African-American churches historically rally their congregants to go to the polls. (Ohio was one of five states to cut back on early voting since 2010.) Voting rights activists subsequently gathered enough signatures to block the new voting restrictions and force a referendum on Election Day. In reaction, Ohio Republicans repealed their own bill in the state legislature, but kept a ban on early voting three days before Election Day (a period when 93,000 Ohioans voted in 2008), adding an exception for active duty members of the military, who tend to lean Republican. (The Obama campaign is now challenging the law in court, seeking to expand early voting for all Ohioans).
The Romney campaign has recently captured headlines with its absurd and untrue claim that the Obama campaign is trying to suppress the rights of military voters. The real story from Ohio is how cutbacks to early voting will disproportionately disenfranchise African-American voters in Ohio’s most populous counties… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <The Nation>
Last week, Rachel Maddow reported on Ohio’s broken election system and the events that led up to the invention of this Republican lie.
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
If that doesn’t convince you of Republican duplicity, see how Ohio Republicans are scheduling extra voting time in Republicans areas only. Rachel covered this one too.
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Here the difference between the parties becomes clear. Democrats want expanded voting for all American voters, regardless of affiliation. Republicans, on the other hand, are demonstrating that they want expanded voting for Republican voters only. Republicans want power no matter who they have to screw to get it. Stopping them is your job.
11 Responses to “The Truth about Ohio Voting”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
"Witless" Rmoney's nose is growing longer by the minute.
Were he do be elected, God forbid, I'd have to to pull one of my favorite handles for Crawford Caligula out of retirement for Willard: Potomac Pinocchio.
The following is only part of the suit by Obama for America. There are an additional roughly 30 pages which can be viewed at http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/husted-motion-pi.pdf
Case: 2:12-cv-00636-PCE-NMK Doc #: 2 Filed: 07/17/12 Page: 1 of 32 PAGEID #: 22
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
OBAMA FOR AMERICA; : Case No. 2:12cv00636
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL :
COMMITTEE; and : Judge Peter C. Economus
OHIO DEMOCRATIC PARTY :
: Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King
Plaintiffs, :
v. :
:
JON HUSTED, in his official capacity :
as Ohio Secretary of State and : PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
MIKE DEWINE, in his official capacity : PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
: AND
as Ohio Attorney General : MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN
: SUPPORT
Defendants. :
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Plaintiffs Obama for America, the Democratic National Committee, and the Ohio
Democratic Party hereby move this Court for a preliminary injunction to prevent the State
Defendants from arbitrarily denying tens of thousands of Ohio voters the right to cast their votes
in the three days prior to Election Day – a critical right that was granted to all qualified Ohio
voters in 2005, used by an estimated 93,000 Ohio voters in the 2008 presidential election, and
inequitably taken away from most, but not all, Ohio voters without justification in the last year.
As demonstrated below, and in the supporting Memorandum of Law, Plaintiffs are very likely to
succeed on their claims that recent legislative changes to Ohio election law violate the Equal
Protection Clause of the United States Constitution; Plaintiffs’ members and supporters –
Democratic voters who may not be able to vote if the right to vote early in person in the three
days prior to Election Day is taken away – will be irreparably harmed if an injunction does not
issue; the balance of hardships tips in Plaintiffs’ favor; and a preliminary injunction restoring
early voting in the three days prior to Election Day for all eligible Ohio citizens would be in the
public interest.
As a result of a confused series of statutory maneuvers and “technical corrections” in the
last year, Ohio election law now treats similarly situated Ohio voters differently with respect to
the deadline for in-person early voting. Following the passage of Amended Substitute House
Bill 224 (“HB 224”) and Substitute Senate Bill 295 (“SB 295”), voters using the Uniformed and
Overseas Citizens Absentee Voter Act (“UOCAVA”) are entitled to vote early up until the close
of the polls on Election Day, pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code § 3511.10; non-UOCAVA voters,
however, face a more restrictive deadline: 6 p.m. on the Friday before an election, pursuant to
Ohio Rev. Code § 3509.03. This disparate treatment, which results in a significant burden on the
fundamental right to vote for non-UOCAVA voters, is entirely arbitrary. The Ohio General
Assembly failed to articulate any justification for this disparate treatment in the legislative record
– an extraordinary omission given that the disparity was brought to the Assembly’s attention
through testimony. Moreover, no legitimate justification can be discerned. The three-day
difference for in-person early voting is unrelated to voter qualifications. Furthermore, even if
there were an asserted justification, the relevant provisions must fall: They burden the
fundamental right to vote but are not necessary to any sufficiently weighty state interest. Finally,
to the extent the disparity was motivated by a bare desire to obtain partisan advantage in the
election contest, that motivation cannot justify the disparate treatment. Nor can a simple drafting
error. In sum, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that amendments made to Ohio Rev.
Code § 3509.03 by HB 224 and SB 295, which eliminate the last three days of early voting prior
to Election Day for non-UOCAVA voters only, violate 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Moreover, thousands of Ohio voters, including many of Plaintiffs’ members and
supporters, will be irreparably harmed if a preliminary injunction does not issue. It is well
settled that an abridgement or dilution of the right to vote constitutes irreparable harm. Here, the
withdrawal from most, but not all, Ohio voters of the right to cast a ballot in the three days prior
to Election Day places a significant burden on the right to vote. This burden, once imposed, can
never be undone. Indeed, early voting – particularly in the three days prior to Election Day when
early voting turnout is heavy – is critical to ensuring that voters are not disenfranchised by the
long delays that plagued the 2004 presidential election.
In contrast, the State cannot demonstrate any hardship at all. Any administrative issues
would be minimal; Ohio has successfully administered early in-person voting in the three days
prior to Election Day for five years. Indeed, the absence of early voting in the three days prior to
Election Day for most Ohio voters is likely to increase the administrative burden on the Ohio
election system given the overcrowding that occurred in the 2004 presidential election before the
early voting system was put in place. To the extent there is any administrative inconvenience
from the relief requested herein, it is far outweighed by the infringement of voters’ constitutional
rights. Finally, it is well settled that protecting constitutional rights, as a preliminary injunction
here would do, is always in the public interest.
In light of the foregoing and as set forth in the Proposed Order submitted herewith,
Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction that would prohibit the Defendants from implementing or
enforcing the HB 224 amendments to Ohio Rev. Code § 3509.03, specifically lines 863 and 864
of § 3509.03 (I) in HB 224, as well as the enactment of Ohio Rev. Code § 3509.03 with the HB
224 amendments by SB 295, thereby restoring in-person early voting on the three days
immediately preceding Election Day for all eligible Ohio voters.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ DONALD J. McTIGUE
________________________
Donald J. McTigue (0022849)
Trial Counsel
Mark A. McGinnis (0076275)
J. Corey Colombo (0072398)
McTigue & McGinnis LLC
545 East Town Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Tel: (614) 263-7000
Fax: (614) 263-7078
dmctigue@electionlawgroup.com
mmcginnis@electionlawgroup.com
ccolombo@electionlawgroup.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Robert F. Bauer*
Perkins Coie
700 Thirteenth Street, Suite 600
Washington DC 20005
Tele: 202-434-1602
Fax: 202-654-9104
RBauer@perkinscoie.com
General Counsel for Plaintiffs Obama for
America and the Democratic National
Committee
Jennifer Katzman*
Obama for America
130 East Randolph
Chicago, IL 60601
Tele: 312-985-1645
jkatzman@barackobama.com
National Voter Protection Counsel
for Plaintiff Obama for America
See next post for continuation as my comments keep disappearing
Sorry TC, forgot about all the e-mail addresses in the document.
No problem. 🙂
Continuation of previous post . . .
Why is a military citizen's vote more important than that of any ordinary citizen? Procedures are in place to ensure that military personnel serving overseas have access to their constitutional right to vote. The same should be made available to all citizens and that is what the suit seeks to address — equal access to early voting.
I know you are big on states' rights, but when I see this kind of partisanship on such an important issue, I have to say "screw states' rights". Federal election laws should be consistent across the nation allowing all citizens, no matter where situated, the same voting opportunities. As Rachel noted in the 2nd segment, traditionally Republican/Teabagger counties in Ohio will have longer and more flexible voting times than those in traditionally Democratic counties. Not right! Not fair! And that is in the same state.
This is nothing more than another attempt by Rmoney to deflect attention away from issues, like his tax returns, that are torpedoing his campaign — typical Republican/Teabagger tactic along with lying.
Thanks for the reference, Lynn.
That's exactly correct, with the addition that the equal access used to be the case, until Republicans took it away.
This is a case where I agree with you. However, state control of their own electoral processes are embedded in the Constitution and would require an amendment to change them. Getting 3/4 of state legislatures to agree is highly unlikely, so for now, the courts are the only viable remedy.
Amen.
Lying Liars Lie , so where is the surprise ? Lies and distortions .. seems like that is all that is coming out of their mouths–
No surprise. 🙂
This is very distressing and dangerous to allow more stolen elections, preserve democracy….
Agreed!