Skip to main content

View Diary: OH-15: Ohio Supreme Court disenfranchises 1,000 voters (11 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  All I'm saying is that this was a pre-announced.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Buckeye Hamburger

    ...train wreck.  There was zero possibility that these ballots would be treated any other way--as you note, the state court has a certain partisan composition. What's most surprising to me is that Obama wasn't lawyered-up enough in a key county of a key state to get this hopeless form changed prior to election day...or barring that, why his campaign (on behalf of all Democratic candidates) didn't instruct Democratic observers in the proper completion of the form.

    -5.38/-3.74 I've suffered for my country. Now it's your turn! --John McCain with apologies to Monty Python's "Protest Song"

    by Rich in PA on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 06:51:05 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  It looks like Brunner was preparing for this (0+ / 0-)

      By incorporating Federal District Court orders into her directives to the county boards of election (quite explicitly in this one), Brunner was obviously making sure that she'd have the federal court on her side. As you note, the Ohio Supreme Court presents an obvious partisan problem, so evidently her strategy was getting the federal courts to trump the state courts. It worked, at first, because that was the very federal court that initally ruled in her favor on this, before the appeals court turned it over to the state.

      So I wouldn't say there was zero possibility of success, and there still isn't. As I mentioned, the US Supreme Court has already overruled the Ohio Supreme Court in her favor before. Getting the feds on her side may have been a clever move.

      BTW, I would have been surprised if Obama's people had gone to the trouble and expense to lawyer up for this. Kilroy and Stivers are pretty well lawyered-up as it is.

      Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

      by Buckeye Hamburger on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 07:05:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  There supposedly an Ohio law (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Buckeye Hamburger

        ...that all provisionals must be opened and counted as a batch. So if they begin counting the according-to-Hoyle ballots tomorrow (I hope they're working the weekend), won't there be a problem appealing these 1,000 ballots at a later date?

        •  Dunno (0+ / 0-)

          Dunno about that law. Sometimes the SCOTUS will make a decision in a big hurry, in a time-critical situation, and that has included election deadlines. I remember that they made a couple of quick decisions during the Bush v. Gore fiasco -- usually they take the better part of a year to make up their minds.

          But would they do that, and roust up Scalia out of his crypt this weekend, to decide about 1,000 votes in a House election in Ohio? Hm.

          I'm beginning to see what you mean about the Ohio Supremes stringing this one along.

          Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

          by Buckeye Hamburger on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 07:25:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site