Court OKs Party Challengers at Ohio Polls

[Bossy Monkey]

Nov 2, 1:54 AM EST

Court OKs Party Challengers at Ohio Polls

By TERRY KINNEY
Associated Press Writer

CINCINNATI (AP) -- A federal appeals court has cleared the way for challengers to be present at polling places in Ohio, ruling early Tuesday that their presence on Election Day is allowed under state law.

A three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 to grant emergency stays of two federal judges' orders Monday that barred political parties' voter challengers in Ohio. The judges also consolidated the two cases.

The court said that while there is a strong public interest in letting registered voters vote freely, there is also "strong public interest in permitting legitimate statutory processes to operate to preclude voting by those who are not entitled to vote."

The judges also said that smooth and effective administration of the voting laws means that the rules can't be changed in the hours immediately preceding the election.
(more)
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OHIO_VOTING?SITE=SCCOL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Note: This is an edited post; I originally posted the AP News Alert without details.

Editedit: for one second there, the AP headline was "GOP to challenge voters' eligibility," which would have looked GREAT on the nation's newspapers. Ah well.

[wjsander]

1. Ohio voting: White-people only.

Here we go again...

[mtnester]

21. I am in Ohio, Franklin County as an Election Protection poll watcher

Two trainings yesterday with more than 500 folks, we will NOT let this happen...if we see the trend on challenges of ethnic ONLY, we call the lawyers and the videographers...

Not here assholes, you won't stop them HERE...Ohio is going BLUE, get over it!

[bhunt70]

23. good job and good luck.

[TryingToWarnYou]

36. I dont even know how its legal... Only the government can officially

disenfranchise a voter based on due process.

I dare anyone to challenge me at the polls. The next challenge they will have is figuring out how to eat solid food.

[rugger]

33. We need an armed revolution

Can we get the south to try to secede again? When they do, this time let's not stop them. That was a huge mistake by Lincoln.

I don't see any way out of this divisiveness, I think we need a good old fashioned war. Even the founding fathers said a revolution now and then is a good thing. I think it's been way too long.

[malachi]

39. I agree. Do you really want to live with shitheads that would vote

for the monkey? These people do not think like me and I don't want to have any part of looking at or talking to them. Let them form their own theocratic homophobic, misoginistic, environmental cesspool and worship the piece of shit and his minions. What a fucked up country.

[wysiwyg]

42. They'd just invade you

If they had their own country they'd want whatever you have.

[malachi]

45. I'm not so sure. Most repugs are cowards. When faced with

the choice to fight or flee, most turn tail and split. Just like their hero, chimpy.

[bluestateguy]

2. I'm shocked

I sincerely hope a few of these pasty "challengers" face a few "challenges" of their own from angry voters who they seek to disenfranchise.

[Steelangel]

3. why did I not surprise about this?

GOP and their corruptions, what new?

[aquart]

4. They've been appointing the judges.

[geek tragedy]

5. There is a constitutional right to thuggery, apparently.

Ugh.

[Steelangel]

6. Will democrats appeal to the Supreme Court for that or what?

[yardwork]

12. Yes. In a later version of the article, linked below, they say they will

This is going to the Supreme Court this morning. Will Rehnquist hear it?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041102/ap_on_el_pr/eln_ohio_voting&cid=694&ncid=716

Alphonse Gerhardstein, attorney for the plaintiffs in the Cincinnati case, said early Tuesday that he appealed the 6th Circuit decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

[Zhade]

24. He can't. He's not there.

What does that mean in regards to this?

[western mass]

22. I'm sure the GOP-packed supreme court

will be *so* sympathetic.

[wysiwyg]

43. I heard on NPR the Supreme Court won't hear the case

They let the lower court ruling stand.

<sarcasm>
I'm sure they would have done the same thing if the lower court upheld the Democrats' case.
</sarcasm>

[Sean Reynolds]

7. Why isn't there going to be Dem challengers there?

Eh, I still don't think it'll change the outcome.

[Mandate My Ass]

8. States' rights evidently don't apply when a repuke needs an election

to be "fixed."

They're doing their best to steal it AGAIN, his time openly.

[JDPriestly]

9. Justice - an observation

When courts fail to protect people's rights and ensure justice, bad things happen. I am not making a threat; I am sharing an observation.

Tomorrow is going to be a long day for Ohio poll workers and voters. Remember, the polls don't close until everyone in line at the time the polls were supposed to close gets to vote. People in Ohio should take video games, I-pods, radios, books, magazines, crossword puzzles, etc. to the polls because the Republicans are going to keep those polls open until way into the night, maybe even into the morning.

I thought about going to poll watch in Ohio, but it's just too far. Now I'm sorry.

[AndyTiedye]

13. Same Here

It woulda cost thousands in last-minute airfare and hotels to get there
from California. I figured it was better to give that money to the DNC
than to the airlines. I hope that was the right decision.

[depakid]

18. This could easily become a riot

in any number of precincts. Unless the Supreme Court puts a stop to the bad faith challengers, I have the distinct feeling that there's going to be violence.

Unfortunately, maybe that's how it has to be in this country. It seems to be the only thing Republicans understand.

[stameyjd]

10. WILL WE HAVE ANYBODY THERE DEFENDING THESE VOTERS? IT'S TIME TO FIGHT BACK

PLEASE TELL ME THAT WE HAVE OUR TROOPS AVAILABLE TO DEFEND THESE DEFENSLESS VOTERS BEING HARASSED!

HOW CAN WE HELP?

[Bossy Monkey]

11. Lawyers are better than troops n/t

[NeoConsSuck]

19. Bye Freeper..

BTW, you have a CAPLOCKS key where you can type in Proper Capitalization.

[truth2power]

20. Election Protection will be there. n/t

[Media_Lies_Daily]

30. Oh shut the hell up. Go back where you came from.

[LittleWoman]

14. I am totally PO'd

As a poll worker in Ohio for many years I am totally insulted by the idea the poll workers are not capable of determining who might be trying to vote illegally. Of course this is a Republican campaign to prevent people from voting as I first saw back at the primary in March. I got a letter from the Franklin County Board of Elections yesterday that there would be challengers at the precinct where I work and have worked for the last 15 years. This is in the previously Republican dominated suburb of Upper Arlington. Now either they are sending challengers everywhere or they are very worried about the active grass roots group UA for Kerry which took them very much by surprise. There certainly are no minority voters here to prevent from voting and nobody here will take any crap. Having said that I think today could be very long and very interesting. I will not be taking my allowed lunch break because I want to keep an eye on things all day. It is the poll workers who decide the voter's status as to whether or not the voter votes a regular or a provisional ballot. Also the poll workers can remove the challenger if they feel they are hindering the voting process. We all need to be strong and determined today. Hold your temper but never back down.

[POAS]

15. Democratic challengers

There are a fewposts in this thread wondering about why the Dems don't have challengers and why we aren't fighting back.

In answer to any concerns about this issue I'll try to explain, as best as I understand it, what is actually happening on the ground.

The Democrats DO have registered challengers ready to go to the polls and meet the Republican effort head-on. The primary difference is in what the Dem challengers have been instructed to do at the polls.

Dems will NOT challenge voters. The challengers are there to assist ANY voter being challenged to understand what their rights are and to report any problems to local and regional HQ's so that any legal action that may be needed can begin immediately.

In addition to challengers there will be poll watchers/checkers at every polling station that does not have a challenger to perform normal counting and reporting duties and to report problems as they occur.

[stameyjd]

16. WHERE ARE THE NAACP AND DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN OHIO?

DEMS NEED TO STAY AT POLLS FOR AN HOUR AFTER THEY VOTE TO WATCH FOR PROBLEMS.

DON'T BE AFRAID TO RUSH TO DEFEND THE RIGHT TO VOTE UNMOLESTED!

[Media_Lies_Daily]

31. So, at which poll will you be located?....

Will you be wearing a Bush-Cheney button?

[John_H]

41. If what you say is correct, the dems have wimped out again.

[wysiwyg]

44. GOP would be happy to have Democrats challenge votes

That way the right-wingers could say "The Democrats are doing it" and more challenges would even further slow down the votes. Besides, you can't assume any particular person is a right-winger. Republicans find advantage in challenges because such a large percentage of people of color vote Democratic.

Also, People with low paying jobs don't have as much flex-time, unless they're unemployed, and can't just wait in line all day. If they're late for a shift they don't get paid or could get fired.

[VOX]

17. 3 Appeals judges: 1 appointed by * in 2002; 1 by Reagan; one by Clinton

And thus the 2-1 vote, and thus all the screaming and ranting about all the conservative judicial appointments under a Republican administration.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/2004/la-na-ohiovote2nov02,0,3514993.story?coll=la-home-headlines
November 2, 2004
Late Ruling Allows GOP to Challenge Ohio Voters
By Henry Weinstein, Times Staff Writer
<snip>
The 2-1 appeals court majority disagreed.

"Longer lines may, of course, result from delays and confusion when one side in a political controversy employs" challenges "more vigorously than in previous elections," Judge John M. Rogers wrote for the court. But "such a possibility does not amount to the severe burden upon the right to vote" that would justify a court order, he said.

Rogers, who was appointed by President Bush in 2002, was joined by Senior Judge James L. Ryan, who was appointed by President Reagan in 1985.

Appeals Court Judge R. Guy Cole Jr., a 1995 appointee of President Clinton, dissented.
<snip>

[Merlin]

25. WAIT A MINUTE! IT'S NOT OVER YET!

A poster on GD (Campaign) noted this piece from OSU's Law School daily publication. NB the 3d paragraph:

November 2, 2004

In a 2-1 decision, applying to both the Summit County and Spencer cases, the Sixth Court federal court of appeals has stayed the orders issued by both Judge Adams and Judge Dlott. Unless this stay is vacated by the U.S. Supreme Court, the effect of this stay is to permit challenges at polling places by challengers designated by the political parties. In addition, on Monday, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that political parties are permitted one challenger per precinct, even if there is more than one precinct at the same polling place.

Remaining unclear, however, is the effect of Monday's ruling from the federal court in Newark, NJ, that bars "he Republican National Committee, its officers agents and employees . . . from using for challenging purposes on November 2, 2004 a list originally of 35,000 names prepared for that purpose by the Republican Party in the State of Ohio." According to press reports, the RNC sought a stay of that order from the Third Circuit federal court of appeals, but as of yet we are unaware of any action by the Third Circuit. Whether the Newark-based federal judge's ruling bars the Ohio Republican Party, or local party organizations, from exercising challenges based on the same list is debatable.

In addition, it is our understanding that the plaintiffs in Spencer have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to vacate the Sixth Circuit's stay, and the Supreme Court - or at least Justice Stevens as the Circuit Justice for the Sixth Circuit - is expected to rule on that request in the early hours of Tuesday morning.

<more>

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/analysis/041102a.html

[Kolesar]

28. Justice Stevens let the 6th Circuit decision stand-the gop has challengers

Well, the Democrats have prepared for this.

[Merlin]

29. Where is that news? This thread is about the appeals court.

The piece I linked to is about the US Supreme Court, represented by the Chief Judge of the District.

If I have this wrong, do you have a link to Steven's decision? I haven't seen it.

[Kolesar]

32. Cle public radio reported this

I was eating breakfast, so I am not sure of the details.

[Q]

26. The right judges in the right places...

...RWingers have been working on this for decades. Now we know why.

- This DOES place an undue burden on voters...and these judges know it.

[JimGinPA]

27. Don't Let Them Win!

Bring ID with you to vote...make sure you're at the correct poll... even if they do challenge your eligibility, chances are the challenge will be rejected by the poll workers anyway, and even if they accept the challenge (for any reason), vote on a provisional ballot and call someone tracking this sort of thing - follow up. But don't let anyone stop you from voting through intimidation.

[RawMaterials]

34. in ohio you dont need an id

the law says that no id is required, if some one challenges you tell them to F*CK off.

[RawMaterials]

35. there only going to the places that voted for gore in2000

these are just a few places in Cincinnati. mostly African American poling places.

[hedgehog]

37. I was worried until I remembered

that this is Ohio. Just stop and think - some repug from the 'burbs is going to go into Cleveland or Youngstown to challenge voters...... I pity the fool.

[The Flaming Red Head]

38. I wonder if they're using Op Rescue types?

and are going to try and keep people from the polls the way they do at the clinics.

I wish I was there.

I'd say bring it on you right wing weenies.

[John_H]

40. WILL DEMS HAVE 3 CHALLENGERS FOR EVERY GOP CHALLENGER?

If we don't have at least a one to one ratio, we need to quit whining.

[AndyTiedye]

48. We Have About 1/3 as many as the Rethugs

[Catfight]

46. I really can't wait to get these assholes out! n/t

[Carson]

47. There will be Democratic challengers there as well....

At least, that's what I read in the news story.

Perhaps I'm too naive, but I don't see the problem. If everything is legal with one's registration, what does one have to worry about?

Here's a quote from the article: "Poll workers generally would challenge someone if his or her signature didn't match the one in the poll book, or if the poll worker recognized the individual as someone who didn't belong in that precinct.

Republicans have said they plan to check names of voters against lists of absentee ballots and of people who have died recently."

Someone explain to me why this is so terrible? Seriously.

I hope Dems are doing the same thing.

[Child_Of_Isis]

49. Our local (OH) paper said

that we would not know who got OH until Nov 14th. Due to provisional ballots. I believe this is the link http://www.chillicothegazette.com/news/stories/20041102/localnews/1520669.html


I smell a major rat!