Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Blackwell's Ghost: BOE "mismatch" notice turned off?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-18-08 01:14 PM
Original message
Blackwell's Ghost: BOE "mismatch" notice turned off?
Blackwell's Ghost: BOE "mismatch" notice turned off?
by John in Cincinnati

Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 08:40:56 AM PDT

More interesting all the time. SCOTUS (10/17/08) overruled Sixth District on Secretary of State Brunner's handling of registration issues with respect to the Statewide Voter Registration Database (SVRD). That lower court's opinion could have disenfranchised up to 200K Ohio voters.

GOP then filed suit in Ohio Supreme Court (10/17/08) seeking to prevent opening of absentee ballot enclosing envelopes (scheduled to begin 10/25/08) until those from voters who registered since 1/01/08 are verified. Once the ballot is removed from the enclosing envelope it is effectively removed from association with the individual voter, thus, no challenge is possible.

Specifically, the lawsuit asks the Ohio Supreme Court to require Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner to order county elections boards not to count any absentee ballot from voters registered after Jan. 1 without first checking the statewide voter registration database to ensure there is no mismatch. (Dispatch, 10/17/08)

John in Cincinnati's diary :: ::
The latest case affects voters who have registered since 1/01 and requested absentee (early) ballots. Potentially a lot, but far less than 200K.

Ohio SC Case

Im not sure what is actually going on with the state database. Its manual indicates that notices of mismatch are sent to local BOEs (quoted in the 6th Circuits 3-judge panel decision, around 10/10). That appears to jive with HAVA and Ohio law. BUT in Brunners memorandum in support of stay filed earlier with District court in ORP v. Brunner she states:

that the previous Secretary of State, in June of 2006, decided to reprogram the Statewide Voter Registration Database so that various error notifications from BMV's non-matches or mismatches were not automatically sent to the boards of elections. Worley Affidavit.

Notification turned off by Blackwell prior to his unsuccessful run for Governor?

-snip
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/18/103757/92/193/...
Refresh | +16 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-18-08 01:19 PM
Response to Original message
1. Background:GOP file new lawsuit against Brunner-rebuffed by SCOTUS they turn to OH top court
Republicans file new lawsuit against Brunner
Rebuffed at U.S. Supreme Court, they turn to Ohio's top court
Friday, October 17, 2008 11:53 AM
Updated: Friday, October 17, 2008 06:05 PM
BY MARK NIQUETTE
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

ASSOCIATED PRESS
People line up to go to the Lorain County Board of Elections during a voter registration drive earlier this month.
Having lost before the U.S. Supreme Court in a lawsuit involving the verification of new voter registrations, Republicans now are turning to the Ohio Supreme Court.

David Myhal, a Republican from New Albany, filed a lawsuit this afternoon asking the state's highest court to issue an order related to instances when new voter information doesn't match records in state or federal databases.

Specifically, the lawsuit asks the Ohio Supreme Court to require Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner to order county elections boards not to count any absentee ballot from voters registered after Jan. 1 without first checking the statewide voter registration database to ensure there is no mismatch.

If there is a mismatch, the boards would be required to determine whether the person is an eligible voter.

"This action seeks this (Ohio Supreme Court's) urgent intervention to remedy the secretary of state's steadfast refusal to fully implement the Statewide Voter Registration Database (SWVRD) in a manner required by both federal and state law -- in essence, to share 'mismatch' information regarding a registrant's driver's license or Social Security information with county boards of elections in a manner that gives those boards a meaningful opportunity to investigate the mismatches," the lawsuit says.

-snip
http://www.columbusdispatch.com/live/content/local_news...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
John in Cincy Donating Member (21 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-18-08 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
2. Ohio Registration Suits: Some of the back story
Ohio again is likely to play a pivotal role in the POTUS election. Aparently alarmed by the increase in likely-Dem voter registrations, the Ohio Republican Party (ORP) is doing what it can to tamp down registrations. I won't go into all the details here, but the ORP has filed something on the order of ten suits in the past month.

The most recent round of litigation has to do with ORP's desire to obtain what can only be described as caging lists. The statewide voter registration database (SVRD) compares entries with the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV), if there's a match with info on file, the entry is verified. If no match the registration is sent to the Social Security Administration (SSA). Mismatches or non-matches are flagged in the SVRD so any local board of elections (BOE) can look up a particular voter and determine if info matches or if they should investigate further.

The apparent glitch is that the SVRD may not be sending contemporaneous notices of mis-/non-matches to the local BOE. That may, or may not be, compliant with the letter and spirit of HAVA. Regardless, the BOE could, say, wait a few days and check new registrations in the SVRD. Where this emerged as a "problem" was when the ORP requested lists by county of all new registrants who requested an absentee ballot at the same time. Since this is the first POTUS election in which Ohio has "no fault" absentee voting, there was a six-day window when absentee ballots were available, before the registration deadline (9/30 10/06), AND when this same day registration/voting* would likely be used by Obama supporters.

When SOS Brunner informed the ORP she could not do that, they filed suit alleging noncompliance with HAVA. In hindsight a better approach may have been for Brunner to refuse on the basis that ORP's request was an attempt to develop caging lists. Taking the tack she did, she ended up in court. Court orders ran on again/off again, in terms of reconfiguring the SVRD or producing lists, as the case made its way from District to Circuit courts, then finally SCOTUS, who vacated District's order based upon ORP's lack of standing. Now we're on to about round five by going back to the Ohio SC and limiting the request to verifying new registrations who requested an absentee ballot. Timing is crucial here since BOEs may begin to open absentees beginning 10/25 which effectively ends anyone's ability to challenge.

On the positive side, this legal wrangling has already run out the clock for individual challenges (20 days before the election) which may have been part of the Secretary's game plan. Second, the SCOTUS decision effectively removes the possibility of a blanket challenge to the approximately 200K new registrants since Jan. 1 who could have been required to vote provisionally.

The drama continues . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-18-08 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. John, please explain why Blackwell might turn off that notification. Was it a possible set up
for future (as in '08) elections?

BTW Welcome to DU :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-18-08 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
4. K&R. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-18-08 10:31 PM
Response to Original message
5. One more rec, please?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul 31st 2014, 09:05 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC