Skip to main content

View Diary: [Updated] Ohio to outlaw recounts and shield Diebold (196 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  See my reply to DHinMI (none)
    Your link to the final bill does indeed have a Section 3515.08, which exempts federal contests from  the state law. The relevant language is underlined.

     

       Sec. 3515.08.  The (A) Except as otherwise provided in this division, the nomination or election of any person to any public office or party position or the approval or rejection of any issue or question, submitted to the voters, may be contested by qualified electors of the state or a political subdivision. The nomination or election of any person to any federal office, including the office of elector for president and vice president and the office of member of congress, shall not be subject to a contest of election conducted under this chapter. Contests of the nomination or election of any person to any federal office shall be conducted in accordance with the applicable provisions of federal law.

    •  In the diary entry the quote box mentioned (3.50)
      That it would make illegal recounts for elections to federal office. The bill does no such thing. It simply doesn't apply that section of Ohio law to federal office elections.

      While this leaves the whole prospect of how federal office election results could be challenged but it is simply not correct to claim it would be illegal. Disinformation doesn't help. If it were stated correctly people coukd discuss it from the proper standpoint. The reason why this is important is so that some democrat candidate doesn't go out stating that it would be illegal to recount federal office elections and they would rightly be called wrong and potentially come off looking like an idiot.

      When it comes to dealing with the republicans we must have our facts straight and be accurate lest we get clobbered on a technicality and the interested voters would get confused.

      •  didn't the quote box say 'challenges'? (none)
        I don't think that rises to the level of 'disinformation' -- 'uninformation,' pretty much.

        But Fitrakis and Wasserman's piece on the GAO report was somewhere between a stretch and a whopper, and their piece on Ohio 2005 was poor, and their response to Hertsgaard's article was a muddle, so skepticism is warranted.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site