Sat Oct 20, 2012, 08:30 AM
babsbunny (8,380 posts)
Despite Court Order, Ohioís GOP Election Chief Is Still Cutting Back Early Voting (?)
By Ian Millhiser on Oct 18, 2012 at 9:00 am
Two federal courts said that the Ohio Republican Partyís effort to reduce opportunities to vote early must not go into effect. And the Supreme Court rejected an attempt by Ohio Republican officials to reinstate a GOP-backed law taking away three days of early voting just this week.
Yet despite multiple court defeats, Ohioís Republican Secretary of State Jon Husted is determined to restrict early voting as much as he can get away with. Indeed, Husted openly defied the first court order blocking the Republican restrictions on early voting, although he eventually backed down after a federal judge ordered him to appear in court personally to explain himself. Now, just two days after the conservative Roberts Court turned away Hustedís bid to reinstate the anti-voter law, he is still finding new ways to cut back early voting:
9 replies, 1033 views
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Despite Court Order, Ohioís GOP Election Chief Is Still Cutting Back Early Voting (?) (Original post)
Response to babsbunny (Original post)
Sat Oct 20, 2012, 08:36 AM
onenote (25,034 posts)
3. Unfortunately there probably is nothing that can be done
The crux of the legal issue in the case was the unequal treatment of voters resulting from the state's attempt to limit early voting during the last three days before election day to military voters and their families. Husted's new directive treats all voters the same. While there is basis for challenging his decision to make a statewide decision rather than leave it to the local election boards, the fact is that -- and the court of appeals decision is pretty clear on this -- those boards could legally decide to allow NO early voting during the three days before election day so long as that ruling applies to all voters, not just non-military voters. Here is the language from the court of appeals decision:
"The State argues that the district courtís remedy was overbroad because it could
be read to affirmatively require the State to mandate early voting hours during the threeday
period prior to the election. We do not read the district courtís order in this way.
The order clearly restores the status quo ante, returning discretion to local boards of
elections to allow all Ohio voters to vote during Saturday, November 3, 2012; Sunday,
November 4, 2012; and Monday, November 5, 2012. Because Ohio Rev. Code
ß 3509.03 is unconstitutional to the extent that it prohibits non-military voters from
voting during this period, the State is enjoined from preventing those voters from
participating in early voting. But the State is not affirmatively required to order the
boards to be open for early voting. Under the district courtís order, the boards have
discretion, just as they had before the enactment of ß 3509.03."
Response to mucifer (Reply #5)
Sat Oct 20, 2012, 09:09 AM
onenote (25,034 posts)
6. The case had nothing to do with early voting prior to November 3.
All the law tried to do was set a timetable for early voting that allowed everyone to vote early in-person up through November 2, but then only allow military personnel and their families to vote early in-person on the Saturday, Sunday and Monday (Nov 3,4 and 5) immediately preceding election day.