My 2 cents on the Ohio gamesplaying discussed by Rachel,

[elleng]

with different rules for times open for voting places for each county, discriminating against Democratic counties: Will be shot down by Federal court (and its got to get there,) based on 'a per curiam decision, the Court ruled that the Florida Supreme Court's method for recounting ballots was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The reason for this was the lack of equal treatment of all the ballots cast in Florida.'

Bush v. Gore

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore

SLIGHTLY off point, but not enough, imo, to change my predicted result.

[PDJane]

1. From your mouth to God's ear.........or something.

This is simply outrageous, and I have no idea why there aren't mass lawsuits by now in all kinds of places.

[bigdarryl]

2. Good point so where the fuck is Eric Holder on this issue

Strickland didn't seem all that confident that this could be fixed in time before the election.Seems like a simple case to me this is more important than the law suit the Administration has going about early voting for everybody vs just letting the Vets vote early

[elleng]

5. Strickland not a bright bulb, imo.

[HeiressofBickworth]

3. I don't think Bush v. Gore can be used as precedent

as the decision itself stated it was "limited to present circumstances," IOW, can't be used as a precedent in any other lawsuit. It would be better to base a lawsuit against Ohio on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965:

"Section 2 contains a general prohibition on voting discrimination, enforced through federal district court litigation. Congress amended this section in 1982, prohibiting any voting practice or procedure that has a discriminatory result. The 1982 amendment provided that proof of intentional discrimination is not required. The provision focused instead on whether the electoral processes are equally accessible to minority voters. This section is permanent and does not require renewal." (wikipedia)

It seems so simple -- the law is explicit -- so why is Eric Holder inactive? Can it be that this lawyer who was plucked out of a white-collar defense firm doesn't have the belly for constitutional law issues?

Look at the law, look at what Ohio is doing -- a first-year lawyer could win this case. At the very least and just to get the ball rolling, an injunction should be filed until after the election.

[elleng]

4. Ohio Sec of State just announced this game few days ago;

litigation takes a while, tho injunction certainly available.

Yes, Bush v. Gore said 'limited,' but principle of equal protetion NOT limited. As to Voting Rights Act, another option; can base case on both, 'in the alternative.'

[HeiressofBickworth]

6. Yes, Ohio annouced this game a few days ago,

however, Ohio's history of voter suppression is long. 2002 Help America Vote Act; 2004 Congressional Report "Preserving Democracy-What Went Wrong in Ohio; changes were recommended after 2008; 2009 League of Women Voters Settlement. Few of these recommendations have been implemented (7/28/12 - Cincinnati Enquirer)

Holder has been in office since 2009. Ohio's history is well known. He has had ample time and ample cause of action to pursue a case against Ohio for election fraud and violation of the Voting Rights Act.

Although Wikipedia isn't always a reliable source, this tidbit is interesting: "J. Christian Adams and former Bush appointee Hans A. von Spakovsky have also accused the civil rights division in Holder's Department of Justice of torpidity and improvidence. According to Adams and von Spakovsky, the voting section has hired dozens of new attorneys. The number of cases filed since 2009 has declined sharply. Many of its employees spend their time "playing computer Solitaire, watching videos, and venting at the lack of activity. (Holder's bio)

Thanks for your post. You got me to do a bit of googling which I always enjoy.

[elleng]

7. You're welcome.

Wiki rather more reliable than von Spakovsky, imo. Google HIM, for a 'laugh,' or not!