« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Supreme Court Sides With Dems On Ohio Voting Case
In a ruling late this morning, the Supreme Court sided with Ohio's Democratic Secretary of State, who's in a dispute with the state GOP over voting.
Reports the AP:
The justices on Friday overruled a federal appeals court that had ordered Ohio's top elections official to do more to help counties verify voter eligibility.Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, a Democrat, faced a deadline of Friday to set up a system to provide local officials with names of newly registered voters whose driver's license numbers or Social Security numbers on voter registration forms don't match records in other government databases.
The ruling could make it easier to vote for thousands of Ohioans whose voter registration information did not match up with other government records.
And the McCain campaign has already responded. On a conference call with reporters just now, campaign manager Rick Davis said: "If you look at what the ruling said, it said that the Republican party didn't have standing in order to bring the suit, it didn't make a decision on the merits of the case." Davis added: "I think that the Secretary of State ought to do her job."
Josh
Zachary
I bet Joe the plumber will be happy.
October 17, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean Samuel the unlicensed plumber?
Who owes back taxes and has a lien against his shack?
Who isn't bright enough to know the difference between gross business receipts, and net taxable income?
Nor bright enough to figure out he's actually going to get a tax cut from Obama.
btw: a perfect symbol for McCain supporters generally. Generally confused and ignorant people.
October 17, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Samuel The Unlicensed better get himself an accountant. He's a confused person, for sure. If he's working for another outfit, he's an employee, not a business owner. And if he plans to buy a plumbing business, he'd better hustle and get his license!
October 17, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hah!
October 17, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The United States Supreme Court? Ruling against the GOP? Am I tripping?
October 17, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I normally try to engage in civilized rhetoric on websites but all I can say to this is IT EAT YOU GOP BITCHES.
October 17, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm surprised the AP didn't report on whether the GOP planned to use the list of flagged voters to challenge their identities at the polls. I worked at my locak BOE in 2006, and there are a number of reasons for government databases not to match that have nothing to do with voter eligibility. Mainly: typos.
October 17, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
WOW! Democracy survives!
This is no small moment in history, we will look back on this as a bookmark in the history timelines we study.
And it may now assure the landslide they are trying so desperately to defer. One would assume most of those legitimized votes will be for Obama.
October 17, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Possibility: Rather than justify the actions of Ohio's Secretary of State, thereby driving a stake through the heart of so many Republican efforts to game the system, not to say steal the election, the justices may have remembered how burned they themselves are over another of their decisions in electoral politics.
October 17, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
For those of us who harbor profound concerns over the integrity of the coming voting process, and we all should, one important hopeful sign here is that this may presage the readiness of the Obama campaign.
They need to be ready to "rumble".
October 17, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
ALRIGHTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This definitely sends the best possible message about trying this crap.
'Bout time the Supremes redeemed themselves.
October 17, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
They need to remain HUMBLE while getting ready to RUMBLE!
October 17, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is good news for Joe the Plumber, whose last name is misspelled on the voter registration roles, according to Ohio Democratic Chairman Chris Redfern.
October 17, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice job Sec. Brunner.
It's nice to see Ken Blackwell out of this position unable to do his old dirty tricks. Imagine if he was still the Sec. of State?
October 17, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, what a difference it is to have a SecState who isnt looking to fuck you over at every turn. And thanks to the Supremes for (this time) not taking a simple case and twisting the law for your political benefactors. Eat my shit Ohio GOP.
October 17, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
What effect, if any , will this have on the FBI investigation of other states and ACORN registration? I think it was "telling "that Gov. Crist of Florida basically dismissed allegations of ACORN mischief in Florida. ACORN registered MANY Hispanic voters,there.
October 17, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Davis completely misrepresents the Supreme Court holding. The court did not rule that the republican party lacked standing, as Davis claimed. The SC ruled that the question of whether the republican party (or any other private litigant) had standing was sufficiently in question that the likelihood that the republican party would prevail on the merits was not great enough to meet the high standard for entrance of a temporary restraining order ("TRO"). So the SC ruled that the lower court was in error in issuing the TRO.
October 17, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks thomas c. I read it and concur that the burden for obtaining a TRO is sufficiently high that they are not supposed to be given when there is doubt about the result, especially when the balance of harms is roughly equivalent -- as it would be here, where "voter fraud" concerns have be weighed against invalidating the votes of validly registered citizens.
Pushing voter fraud is almost as reprehensible as playing the race card.
October 17, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
In many ways, it is the flip side of the same coin.
October 17, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is great news! For Ohio Republicans!!
October 17, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if Bush v. Gore (2000) might have been decided differently if Roberts and Alito had been on the bench then.
The Bush coronation might have looked a lot different if the vote had been 5-4, instead of 7-2.
October 17, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Roberts and Alito would have been in the 7. And the remedy part would have been the same 5-4.
John
October 17, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
So glad to see this happen! However, I don't think the Ohio Repubs are finished trying to meddle with the voting process. Look for them to stir up some more shit.
October 17, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Davis best watch his mouth,,,,, Brunner is exremely popular in this state,,,,, not the least being she replaced retireing master of voter supression hisself, Ken Blackwell.
October 17, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
"This is good news for John McCain."
John
October 17, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is wonderful news! I was very concerned about blocking and/or hindering 600,000 voters in a battleground state like Ohio. I suspect the Supreme Court is beginning to regret the unconstitutional interference by the Federal judiciary in state election processes.
October 17, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am going to try to say/write this as calmly as I can, and it's going to be difficult to engage in a clinical analysis of "standing" or other details of the case:
I am a 54 year-old Black woman. Due to the wonders of the Black southern culture built by generations of Black people, I did not grow up "tragically-colored" - as Zora Neal Hurston would say. I went to college, grad school, took ballet...kind of like Condi. A lot of us grew up like Condi...
All of that is to say that it took until 1999 for this country to break my heart because my elders made sure that day did not happen any sooner than that. I (and friends)watched on CNN the absolute rawest grab of power we had ever seen; e.g., Fla/Supreme Court. It was truly a sight to behold and the gravest betrayal...
In 2004 my hope was that even if the Dems lost, it would be b/cause Kerry ran an awful campaign or people were scared and wanted to keep Bush in a time of war - or whatever. Whatever "sane" reason there could be to lose an election...
But then there was Ohio/Ken Blackwell/long lines and madness in Cleveland/ballot initiatives and mega-churches and preachers coming together in an ugly, ugly unholy mission...
So this decision today brings makes me cry. Quite simply. I'll parse the text and worry about the other trickery tomorrow, but today I am going to cry.
Thank you won't-take-shit Secretary of State Brunner. You are (in the words of my daughter's generation) beautifully, wonderfully "hard core."
And I hope that someday soon (post-January 20th), this country can take back the DOJ from one-party rule.
And (hope this is not premature):
Thank you Governor Crist for heading the chaos-makers off at the pass.
October 17, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope it's not premature either. This is probably even more important than it looks on the surface.
October 17, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kudos for Jennifer Brunner.She`s fair ,she`s smart,and she`s heads above Ken Blackwell who is a lousy politician as a well as a lousy person.
The rr-thug suit was suppression scheme just like 2006.I`M HAPPY FOR THE PEOPLE WHO DON`T GET OF THEIR VOTE this year.
October 17, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Something that needs to be repeated during these voter suppression attempts is that the Republicans raise complicated problems at the last moment, when clearly they could have brought these suits and challenges a long time ago, if they were sincere. Maybe when Republicans bring these up as just means of stopping voter fraud, we should ask why they didn't bring it up when there was time for proper procedures. Compare that to Democrats fighting election fraud, which is ongoing and concerned with having time to fix problems. Republican want to make sure there ISN'T time to fix problems.
October 17, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rick Davis is not happy and is trying to spin SCOTUS his way, but he needs to read the words of the Supreme Court of the United States, No.08A332, Jennifer Brunner, Ohio Secretary of State v. Ohio Republican Party et al.,"We therefore grant the application for a stay and vacate the TRO. It is so ordered." Translation, what Rick Davis says means zero period!
The Republican Party and its leadership tells us they wish to save democracy and safe safeguard the vote. They lost the Ohio TRO but say Acorn is really determined to steal the election, and they urgently want to bring this to a federal investigation level immediately. But not so fast. Here's a couple of observations first.
Acorn began 38 years ago by reaching out to poor people, previously disenfranchised Americans and helping them get better schools, better jobs, better neighborhoods, better government and the inclusion into the democratic process.
John McCain began 26 years ago by reaching out to rich people, not previously disenfranchised Americans and helping block school busing programs, helping CEOs acquire golden parachutes for their retirement and health care programs, including Indian casinos in their neighborhoods, better government lobbying for big corporations and domination of the upper 1 percent into the democratic process.
Senator McCain urgently is only now calling for an investigation 3 weeks before the election. According to the numbers he has had decades to raise the red flag. But then again he also thought recently that the economy was fundamentally strong. Soon it will be up to the people to decide who gets investigated, and may be that is McCain’s real concern.
October 17, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bottom line is that Republicans DO NOT want everyone to vote. It is that simple.
October 17, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The media completely dropped the ball on the significance of Ohio BEFORE the ACORN allegations. John McCain thought he had the votes sewed up(as did Blackwell) when he named Ohio Pastor Rod Parsley as one of his spiritual advisors.Parsley,like John Hagee and Sarah Palin are all members of Assemblies of God who are "Christian Dominionists" who want to create a Theocracy and engage in electioneering for Christ. Hagee also founded CUFI-Christians United For Israel.Please read the article[published,BTW, BEFORE Palin was named VP.]It will knock your socks off!
Daily Kos: Here's why McCain may have stepped away from Rod ParsleyMay 23, 2008 ... Rod Parsley--head of World Harvest Church in Columbus, OH--is not only a major .... Much of why Kenneth Blackwell lost was because of ...
www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/23/144213/917/393/521338 -
October 17, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
"WOW! Democracy survives! This is no small moment in history, we will look back on this as a bookmark in the history timelines we study. And it may now assure the landslide they are trying so desperately to defer. One would assume most of those legitimized votes will be for Obama."
I wouldn't be to up high on the Supreme Court, yet. If by chance, and slim chance there is, that some of the laws broken by members of the Bush administration (and Bush himself) come before the Court, we will all see a Court reluctant to uphold the "law of the land".
October 17, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not over yet. The repug dirty tricks will not stop. While we can rest easy about the SCOTUS decision today, we must be diligent and keep up with phone banking, GOTV, canvassing, and all of our individual efforts.
If you know any attorneys who can travel to battleground states to work on voter protection (on a volunteer basis) for the campaign in battleground states, they should contact their local state Obama office or Obama HQ in Chicago.
www.barackobama.com/counselforchange
October 17, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even the conservatives on the Supreme Court fear a McCain/Palin administration. They may be conservative but they are not stupid. They know Obama is the better man for the job.
October 18, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The link to this article from the talkingpointsmemo home page says that the US Supreme Court "rebuffed" a similar GOP effort on a "legal technicality".
The effort was importantly not "similar", and the rebuff was not "on a 'legal technicality'".
In the prior effort, the Ohio Republican Party sought an injunction (a "TRO", or temporary restraining order"), from the District Court compelling the Secretary of State to conduct a comparison of names on voter registration and state motor vehicle records, an action that the Ohio Rep. P. argued was required by the Help Americans to Vote Act. The District Court issued the order. The Secretary appealed to the Sixth Circuit. A three judge panel vacated the order. The GOP appealed to the Sixth Circuit en banc (all Sixth Circuit judges). The en banc court reinstated the Circuit Court Order. The Secretary filed an application to Justice Souter to vacate the TRO. Justice Souter referred the matter to the full US Supreme Court. The Court, in an unsigned (per curiam) opinion, issued with no dissents or concurrences, vacated the TRO on the grounds that there was insufficient likelihood that the US Congress would be found at trial to have intended that that a private party would have standing to seek enforcement of the section of the HAVA under which the Ohio Rep. Party came to Court to authorize issuance of a TRO.
Those are not technicalities, any more than it is a technicality to say that the state has the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt to obtain a verdict of guilty in a criminal trial. In both instances the issue is one of procedure -- and therefore of the essence of the way in which rule governed society functions.
What is not "similar" between the effort by the Ohio Rep. Party and the current effort to have the DOJ seek to enforce the HAVA is that Congress certainly did intend for the US government to be able to enforce the law. So if the United States were to go into District Court in Ohio seeking the same order as was sought by the Ohio Rep. Party the issue would not turn on standing, but on the merits of the case.
October 25, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink