Battleground Ohio: Election Issues

[Mabus]

I figure with Ohio steeping up to another possibly messy election it might be an idea to start its own thread. I encourage others from other battleground states to start their own.

US District Court rules OH Secretary of State Brunner's Policy Illegal (http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/09/acorn.html?type=rss&cat=&sid=101)

Brunner's ballot policy illegal, judge rules
Thursday, October 9, 2008 8:09 PM
By Darrel Rowland and Mark Niquette
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner is breaking federal law by not giving county elections boards the chance to determine whether new voter registrations are fraudulent, a federal judge ruled this evening.

"It is hard to imagine a public interest more compelling than safeguarding the legitimacy of the election of the president of the United States," said Judge George C. Smith of U.S. District Court in Columbus in upholding the Ohio Republican Party's request for a court order.

Brunner's office said she is filing an immediate appeal with the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
(full story at link)

That is the newest little "fun time" for Ohio.

With only about a week left to challenge early and absentee votes, Brunner is stating that her office needs to work on its software before they can let the counties know if registrations have been checked with the BMV and Social Security Administration.

I await the appeal to see how this one shakes out.

[crb]

It pisses me off that voter identification is a partisan issue.

The fact that you need more identification to check out "Everybody Poops" from the library than you need to vote is a joke.

[Cephalopod]

The fact that you need more identification to check out "Everybody Poops" from the library than you need to vote is a joke.

"Everyone Poops" is fairly controversial.

[Mabus]

Ohio Republican Party v. Brunner, No. 08-4322
PDF at FileDen (careful, 50 pages or so long) (http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/2/6/1744287/ORPvBrunner6th%5B1%5D.pdf)

Summary:
The full 6th Circuit reinstated the previous TRO on Brunner (that was reversed previously), requiring her to follow Federal Law, Ohio Law and to do her job of checking voter registrations against BMV and Social Security records.

A couple excerpts:
"At a minimum, [HAVA] requires the Secretary of State, together with the head of Ohio’s Bureau of Motor Vehicles (”BMV”), to agree to “match” information in BMV’s database with information in the Statewide Voter Registration Database (”SWVRD”). No one disputes that the purpose of this matching is “to enable [officials] to verify the accuracy of the information provided on applications for voter registration."

"So far as this record is concerned, the Secretary has given no tenable explanation why her current interpretation of the statute, as opposed to the office’s prior implementation of the law, remotely furthers the anti-fraud objective of the law."

I look for this to be sent to Justice Stevens quickly, if Brunner is going to continue to believe (and act as if) she does not need to follow HAVA.

[Mabus]

Brunner: I'll obey court order, but thousands could lose their right to vote - Cleveland Plain Dealer (http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/10/jennifer_brunner_says_courts_d.html)

An excerpt:
"Since Jan. 1, Ohio has 666,000 newly registered or updated voters -- all of whom fall under scrutiny by this latest court ruling. Brunner said an initial review found that at least 200,000 of them might have mismatched information. Once the office identifies all of the mismatched voters, Brunner will send the list to the county boards of election where the individuals have registered."

200,000 with mismatched information, and they are just beginning to sort it out after being forced by the courts.

And to think I voted for Brunner...

[Mabus]

Well, Brunner is appealing the 6th Circuits order.
Brunner Appeals Case Involving New Voter Registrations - Columbus Dispatch (http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/16/brunnerappeal.html?type=rss&cat=&sid=101)

An excerpt:
"Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner has appealed a case involving the verification of new voter registrations in the state to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Brunner said the appeal of a 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling was filed late last night directly with Justice John Paul Stevens because he oversees the 6th Circuit.

Stevens can outright grant Brunner's request for an emergency order putting the lower court's ruling on hold, reject it, or ask the full Supreme Court to consider the matter."

Looks like she is going to attempt to not check the new registrations where the BMV information and Social Security Numbers do not match the information on the filed forms.

[Keller]

The Supreme Court having ultimate control over the outcome of a state's voting . . . . where have I seen this before . . . ?

[TheEschaton]

There has to be a better system for verifying people are eligible to vote short of making the registration deadline much, much earlier. It seems ridiculous on both sides of the issue - one, that election law can just be ignored in order to allow people to vote, and two, that election law is followed to the last letter in an administrative, procedural attempt to prevent people from voting.

-TheE-

[Mabus]

High court rejects GOP bid in Ohio voting dispute - Cleveland Plain Dealer (http://www.cleveland.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/base/politics-18/122425915951310.xml&storylist=topstories)

There goes Ohio.

[TheEschaton]

Has the constitutionality of HAVA ever been challenged? IT seems like there's always these problems with it come election time, but then once the election is over, everyone forgets it exists.

[Mabus]

Has the constitutionality of HAVA ever been challenged? IT seems like there's always these problems with it come election time, but then once the election is over, everyone forgets it exists.

I have been trying to find the actual ruling, but from what I hear it was an issue of whether a "party" could have standing.

[Keller]

I have been trying to find the actual ruling, but from what I hear it was an issue of whether a "party" could have standing.

They are saying there was no federal standing initially?

[TheEschaton]

yeah, a private organization like the Ohio GOP had no standing to challenge such a ruling, according to what the article says.

Makes sense, don't know who would have standing? Seems like the average voter would be too broad a category.

-TheE-

[Keller]

yeah, a private organization like the Ohio GOP had no standing to challenge such a ruling, according to what the article says.

Makes sense, don't know who would have standing? Seems like the average voter would be too broad a category.

-TheE-

Voters/taxpayers wont have standing.

I suppose McCain would have standing if he lost Ohio.

[Mabus]

Voters/taxpayers wont have standing.

I suppose McCain would have standing if he lost Ohio.
There would be no remedy, in that case.

Once a vote is cast there is no way to track where it came from, hence no remedy.

[Keller]

There would be no remedy, in that case.

Once a vote is cast there is no way to track where it came from, hence no remedy.

I guess McCain could go the irreparable harm route.

But I agree the Ohio GOP has no standing. McCain/Palin has to bring the suit.

[Kembal]

From what I read, essentially there is no private right of action to make this type of challenge according to the Supreme Court. So would even McCain/Palin have the ability to make the challenge, or does this need to be done via DOJ?

Circumscribing the private right of action in voting rights issues has bad consequences long-term, irrespective of your opinion on this particular issue.