Skip to main content

I don't see a legitimate case for the Republican party here. I put together a sketch of the details over at Election Law@Moritz: linked text  

I haven't seen any of the details in the media.

The Complaint in Spencer v. Blackwell: linked text

In a nutshell this is a statute that hasn't been updated or utilitzed since about 1953. It is a Jim Crow law that was intended to deny blacks the vote and is being used that way today. If you drop down to page 5, if a voter is challenged on the grounds she has not been a resident for 30 days, all of the election judges must ask eight questions. If challenged on the grounds she is not a resident of the county all of the election judges must ask three questions.

(more in Extended Entry)

While this process is taking place all voting stops because all of the election judges are required to question the challenged voter. The challenger may also request that all voting be stopped to insure they do not miss another potential challenge.

In addition, if a majority of the election judges do not accept the voters answers to their questions she is not allowed to vote. Their decision can not be appealed or over-ruled.

Because the statute is vague about the procedures and requirements for a challenge, Sec. of State Blackwell issued a Memorandum that also required the challenged voter to sign a two page affidavit. If they refuse to sign them may not vote. The affidavit warns in large, bold typeface Whoever Commits Election Falsification Is Guilty of A Felony In the Fifth Degree.

The rest of the complaint has additional details and provides some interesting history of Jim Crow laws in Ohio, but you get the point. What the Republican party is trying to do is blatant and disgusting. Have any of these details been covered by the media? All I've seen are "big picture" stories.

I can't believe the Circuit Court over ruled the District Court decisions. I'm looking forward to their rationale for re-instituting Jim Crow.

Originally posted to JollyBuddah on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 12:21 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  did the sixth circuit (none)
    over turn the ruling by the New Jersey Judge saying that Ohio's vote supression violated a national consent decree?

    The New York times said the sixth overturned the decision by two judges....but those would be the rulings of the two judges in the sixth district that was based on provisions of state law, and would not apply to the completely separate "consent decree" case coming out of New Jersey.

    any insight?

    •  The Sixth Circuit (none)
      Said they didn't see any reason why African-Americans should be allowed to vote, and that the problem with America is we don't enforce our Jim Crow laws anymore.

      It was a Ku Klux Klan decision that showed the true face of the racist Fascist Party in Amerikkka.

      And to answer you question, I don't think they even addressed the question.  I think they just said it didn't apply and that there were adequate safeguards (a temporary poll worker making 8 bucks an hour) to prevent abuse.

      We hold these truths to be self-evident . . .

      by LeftCoastTimm on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 12:30:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  No idea (none)
      I'm waiting for an update from Moritz. But if Bush/Rove can gum up the election results in Ohio and Florida it goes to their respective Republican legislatures. Voila! Bush wins two states.

      I think this election is moot. Bush just won four more years.

      •  If this happens (none)
        Bush will not like the America he is trying to govern. Things will not go as well as they did in Florida four years ago.

        We hold these truths to be self-evident . . .

        by LeftCoastTimm on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 12:33:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Another point (none)
        I just remembered that on After Hours tonight Howard Fineman said that in Ohio provisional ballots are not counted until 11 days after election day.

        Unless Kerry wins by an amount that exceeds the number of provisional ballots Ohio won't be decided until November 13th at the earliest.

    •  Just checked (none)
      They ignored the NJ ruling.

      We hold these truths to be self-evident . . .

      by LeftCoastTimm on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 12:32:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Another strange point (none)
      Moritz had a thread that said Sec. of State Blackwell was not appealing the District Court decisions. The Circuit court requested a brief from Blackwell.

      It sure looks like the Sixth Circuit already had their mind made up about who they wanted to be President. It will be very interesting to see an analysis of who appointed the judges.

      •  It's in the AP article (none)
        One was appointed by Der Fuehrer, one by Reagan and one by Clinton.

        Guess how they voted?

        We hold these truths to be self-evident . . .

        by LeftCoastTimm on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 12:36:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Re: Another strange point (1.66)
        "It will be very interesting to see an analysis of who appointed the judges."

        One Reagan, one Bush.

        ---

        The part I love about all this is that Fox News "released" this decision at 7pm last night.  A couple of hours later, they retracted it.  But they were obviously informed by Republican partisans that the decision was coming down.

        It was delayed until the middle of the night to give the US Supreme Court an excuse for staying out.

        ---

        Blackwell is trying to maintain credibility for the theft to come.

      •  Blackwell Didn't Appeal, Petro Did (none)
        Jim Petro, the Attorney General, appealed the district court rulings. That's when the circuit court requested a brief from Blackwell. From election law@moritz:

        Analysis of Ohio AG's Sixth Circuit Filings
        11/01/04 (8:02 p.m. ET) - This afternoon, Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro filed briefs on behalf of the State of Ohio in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in connection with the two federal district court decisions of earlier today (Summit and Spencer) that prohibit party challengers from challenging voters at Ohio polling places on election day.

        Operation 'Fool Me Once' -- Targeting Papers That Endorsed Bush in 2000

        by Paul Rosenberg on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 01:47:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  NJ Case Not Overturned, But Seemingly In Limbo (none)
      I was just at Election Law@Moritz, and it's pretty clear that the New Jersey ruling still stands. This makes perfect sense, since a circuit court only has jurisdiction over district courts within the circuit.  The hangup seems to be two-fold--

      (1) There is some uncertainty in the meaning of the court's order, according to Steven Huefner. He says:

      [T]he order enjoins "the Republican National Committee, its officers agents and employees" from using the list for challenging purposes, and also orders the RNC to "instruct its challengers in the State of Ohio not to use such list . . . for challenging purposes." Not clear is whether the district court intended by this language to classify state or county Republican party organizations as "agents" of the RNC, or to include state or county Republican challengers in the category of RNC challengers.

      (2)--And this is purely speculative on my part, as a non-lawyer, but I think that the Democrats in Ohio may have to go to district court there to get the New Jersey order enforced--not to mention interpreted, so that the above-mentioned ambiguity would be removed.  Then, of course, the circuit court could meet and stay that order as well.

      Are we having fun yet???

      Operation 'Fool Me Once' -- Targeting Papers That Endorsed Bush in 2000

      by Paul Rosenberg on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 12:39:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  RECOMMENDED (none)
    What they are trying to do is shut down polling places, during the rain, in selected areas with large Democratic bases.  And that way, everyone decides to leave or can't get into the polls by 8pm.

    Plan B is to inspire violence which will also shut down the polls.

    BE VIGILANT AND DISCIPLINED!

    •  Cant We Go Into THEIR (none)
      strongholds and do the same fucking thing? Why not send some (preferrably) minority Democratic "poll watchers" into suburban Cincinnati to stop the voting THERE? Would be GREAT fun to watch a wealthy suburbanite stopped and questioned while her equally wealthy friends stand behind waiting as voting is "temporarily halted." THAT would be a  great contrast for the evening news to put up.
  •  There's too much anger out there (none)
    This will not be accepted peacefully. The wrong person is going to be challenged, and all hell is going to break loose.

    I already voted for Kerry. So There.

    by nyetsoup4you on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 12:27:26 AM PST

    •  Re: There's too much anger out there (1.50)
      "This will not be accepted peacefully. The wrong person is going to be challenged, and all hell is going to break loose."

      In multiple threads, you keep urging violence at the polls.  Of course that would directly play into the Republican plans.

      Most people are not as undisciplined or stupid as you.

      •  Take your Oct 14th '04 start date outta here (3.00)
        You've only been here for two weeks. Who the hell are you to determine rules or call anyone trolls? In the last hour,  you've been on one thread claiming one guys diary was against rules (which it wasn't). You're calling me a troll when I'm only repeating what's been said on at least two AirAmerica shows today.

        I already voted for Kerry. So There.

        by nyetsoup4you on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 01:12:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  This is Deeply Sick Stuff (1.66)
    Y'know, I didn't really mind FL '00 as much as many Democratic partisans.  Close election always get stolen, and the Republicans were in charge of the levers of power in FL.

    The election was close, and it was one state.

    But what's being planned this year is way beyond the pale.  The pre-election planning and the multiple state theft organization is deeply sick stuff.

  •  Update from Moritz (none)
    linked text
    Unless this stay is vacated by the U.S. Supreme Court, the effect of this stay is to permit challenges at polling places by challengers designated by the political parties. In addition, on Monday, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that political parties are permitted one challenger per precinct, even if there is more than one precinct at the same polling place.

    Judge Ryan, in his concurrence, relied "solely" on his view that the plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue their constitutional claim. He asserted that the risk of chaos, confusion, or inordinate delays from the announced plans for challenges this year was "wholly speculative, conjectural, and hypothetical."

    Judge Guy Cole, Jr., dissented: Even more than in Burson, Judge Cole argued, "voter intimidation is likely [here] because the partisan operatives at the polls will be challenging the right to vote itself, rather than merely campaigning for a particular candidate or issue.

    •  Will the cases continue past the election? (none)
      It seems like the resolution of these cases would be useful for future elections, but I don't know if the parties to the case lose their standing after the election.  I guess it might be divisive to decide a case like this after a close election -- but fuck the Supreme Court if they let this part of the law remain unclear for the next election.  

      Not allowing Bush v. Gore to set a precedent about equal protection in elections has left open a can of worms.  

      •  They won't lose standing (none)
        The 6th Circuit holding is specifically designed to revisit the issue after the election.  The question of standing raised in the main opinion and the concurrence has to do with the fact that, since the election hasn't occurred yet, there's a certain burden on the plaintiff to prove that the future harm they're alleging is likely to occur.

        The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. --George Bernard Shaw

        by Categorically Imperative on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 01:15:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  WTF do we do? (none)
    We can't afford to lose 35,000 voters. We need a plan, and fast!
    •  Unfortunately (none)
      This case is going to the Supreme Court. It's all up to David Boise now.
      •  asdf (none)
        What is the SCOTUS going to do?
        Polls open at 6:30 ET in Ohio. That's only 5 1/2 hours.
        •  A Notice of Appeal has been filed (none)
          I guess the old fuddy duddys are going to have to get up early. I don't know if they can or will hear the case today, but the "speculative" delays and chaos should be very apparent by the time they hear oral argument.
        •  Stevens... (4.00)
          can issue an emergency injunction overturning the decision of the sixth court of appeals.

          that can be overturned only by a majority of the court....

          and I have the feeling stevens will act....

          and this is going to get VERY messy....

          •  Outstanding point (none)
            I wasn't aware this was Stevens call or that it would require a majority of the court to over-rule his injunction. This is very good news!

            Somebody call Stevens and get the old geezer out of bed before the polls open!

            •  What makes you think Stevens sleeps? (none)
              People at that level are prepared- I'm sure most of the justices had clerks memoing all the important cases that might come up on emergency appeal today.  Any action by the Court could be lightning quick- if it hasn't happened that is because stevens knows that the Rq 5 will instantly overturn him.  However, if Rq is perhaps physically incompetent?  Stevens and the other 3 angels can demand he show up rather than let his clerks call it in for him- letting Stevens stay stand.  Prolly not gonna happen.  Are the GOoPers showing up in OH?  I read another post where they had abandoned a country and here in PA the GOP never showed their faces in my assigned area. (C'mon I wanna sue one of the SOB's- bring it on!)

              Might and Right are always fighting In our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning. Might can hardly keep from grinning. -Clarence D

              by Myrkury on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 06:59:00 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  It's far more than 35K voters (none)
        With Rhenquist out of commission, party line in SCOTUS is 4-4 and the lower court ruling stands by default.

        The 35K voters on the list of returned mail is only a starting point.  Worse is the follow-on effect of slowing, if not shutting down, the voting process through the frivolous challenges.  The rethugs may have far more names and/or reasons to do challenges that we don't know about yet, like felon lists and the like.

        The disenfranchisment could range into the hundreds of thousands, and be uncountable as people abandon polling lines in the rain, or are locked out at poll closing time.

        •  Rehnquist is always on the wrong side anyway... (none)
          So any reversal would be 5-3 instead of 5-4.  

          In Britain they admit to having royalty. In the United States we pretend we don't have any, and then we elect them president.

          by Asak on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 01:22:40 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I Don't Think So (none)
        A more direct way would be for the two Ohio district courts to issue orders enforcing the New Jersey ruling.  I believe this would be a fairly straight-forward action, whereas any Supreme Court action is by definition not.

        Operation 'Fool Me Once' -- Targeting Papers That Endorsed Bush in 2000

        by Paul Rosenberg on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 01:00:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  We probably CAN afford to lose them... (none)
      But ideally we won't have to.  I don't know how much hope to hold out though.  

      In Britain they admit to having royalty. In the United States we pretend we don't have any, and then we elect them president.

      by Asak on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 01:21:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The argument as I see it (none)
    If you try "outside" fraud (as opposed to Diebold-style "inside" fraud) you may be able to add a few dozen votes for Mary Poppins, at serious risk of individual jailtime.

    If you try to suppress votes, by shutting down entire neighborhoods with frivolous challenges, you can selectively subtract thousands of votes, and there's no clear risk to any of the individuals responsible.

    The republicans are using the threat of small amounts of outside fraud to justify massive suppression.

    So it's obviously utterly unfair, and the courts should never have overturned the prevention of this practice.  Could we get a runoff?  Doubtful.  There's only one Election Day in Ohio.

    We have to win this without the courts' help.  We have to win this outright.  If it falls into the courts, it just gets worse.  Each court can argue that its action, whatever it is, is trying to remove the courts from the process.  The process is severely ill, but that's what we've got, and I'm confident we can win this outright even in the face of mass disenfranchisement.

    (reposted from an earlier diary on the subject)

    •  Just a footnote. (none)
      There are actually two Mary Poppins and six Dick Tracys living in Ohio. They were verified in the white pages.

      The astonished claims of fraud were utterly bogus.

      'Fie upon the Congress' - Sen Bob Byrd

      by Maxwell on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 12:56:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Document all the racists. (4.00)
    All of the Democratic poll challengers should make a point of taking photos of each individual poll challenger with name and place of origin.

    These are the inheritors of Jim Crow's legacy, and they should be remembered as such. These are racists out to deprive minorities of their right to vote.

    A photo album should be created with each of their photos so they will be remembered permanently as the face of racism in 21st century America.

    'Fie upon the Congress' - Sen Bob Byrd

    by Maxwell on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 12:54:18 AM PST

  •  a challenger must be an elector (4.00)
    Here is part of the ruling from Ohio...

    The appeals in these cases have been consolidated. Both appeals
    involve Ohio Revised Code § 3505.20, which provides that "Any person offering to vote may be
    challenged at the polling place by any challenger, any elector then lawfully in the polling place, or by
    any judge or clerk of elections." Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3505.20 (Anderson 2004). The challengers
    referred to in § 3505.20 are provided for in § 3505.21, which provides:

    At any primary, special, or general election, any political party supporting candidates
    to be voted upon at such election and any group of five or more candidates may
    appoint to any of the polling places in the county or city one person, a qualified
    elector, who shall serve as challenger for such party or such candidates during the
    casting of the ballots,
    and one person, a qualified elector, who shall serve as witness
    during the counting of the ballots; ...

    this same court (sixth circuit appeals) said that provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct do not have to be counted because HAVA requires a QUALIFIED voter---and a voter voting in the wrong precinct is NOT qualified.

    Thus, it seems to me that ONLY people who live in the specified precinct can be QUALIFIED to challenge voters from that precinct.  AND that these people can be made to prove that they live in that precinct.

    And, everyone of us who sees that such a challenge is occurring should demand that the voter prove his residency, and citizenship...and if he DOES live in that precinct, write down the name and address, then go home, type up a flyer, with that person's name and address, and hand it out throughout the neighborhood describing this person's efforts to suppress the vote.

    •  This Is Where Things Get Very Dicey (none)
      I think that some of this may very well be adopted as a strategy tomorrow. And I can imagine the Republicans going to court to try to get challengers re-instated who aren't precinct residents.  I believe it is REALLY going to be a God-awful mess, and that is precisely what the GOP intended, once they began to doubt they could win the state.  

      Giving the GOP a black eye over this early in the day may be crucial to forcing them to back off. If they get the idea that it will cost them more to keep it up, they very likely will back off--and then accuse the Democrats of crying wolf.  Three ring circus time.

      Operation 'Fool Me Once' -- Targeting Papers That Endorsed Bush in 2000

      by Paul Rosenberg on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 01:10:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  How to give them a black eye? What cost? n/t (none)
        •  Black Eye: Press Offensive (none)
          You give them a black eye by waging a press offensive. Something like this: You bring together people who were on the challenge list before election day (some--including the top military recruiter for NE Ohio--were removed on Saturday in Toledo, for example), some who are falsely challenged on election day in the first hour or two, some veterans of the Civil Rights Movement, some celebrities like P-Diddy, Eminem, etc., and you do some charts showing how racist the distribution of challenges are.

          Operation 'Fool Me Once' -- Targeting Papers That Endorsed Bush in 2000

          by Paul Rosenberg on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 01:25:55 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I hope that works... (none)
            but frankly, I think the most radical of the rethug base would just be cheered seeing the racist distribution of challenges.

            And they already have the press defense lined up...it's Blackwell!  "How could Blackwell be doing that to his own people (Clarence Thomas comparisons verboten)?"

            However, the authorities (incl. justices) may well shamed by such a development into putting a stop to it.

            Has the nation no shame?

            •  Let Them Disgust Enough Old-Line Republicans (none)
              I know what the base is like. The point is to expose that to the nation--or, more exactly, to force Rove to choose between one or the other.

              Operation 'Fool Me Once' -- Targeting Papers That Endorsed Bush in 2000

              by Paul Rosenberg on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 02:25:33 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  all Republicans aren't dishonest, thankfully (none)
                My husband was formerly a Republican poll watcher prior to becoming a Democrat!  and prior to meeting me...

                But he is scrupulously honest and tells a story of how when he watched the polls, he ended up helping more people vote straight Democratic, as a bilingual person, than he ever had before, because the election judge had no one else there who spoke Spanish.

                I for one am going to count on the honesty of many Americans, be they Republican or Democrat.

                There will be some polls where there are people who are not honest, but my guess is, there will be many polls where the poll watchers on both sides are honest.

      •  wrong... (none)
        the next step is Stevens, who supervises the sixth district, and is empowered to issue an immediate injunction.

        At THAT point, only a majority of the court can overturn that injunction...

    •  That's for damn sure (none)
      Fight the SCOTUS battle tonight.  If that doesn't work, first thing tomorrow go in front of Judge Dlott and Judge Adams (the district judges who issued the original rulings) and get them to issue declaratory judgments stating that any challenger must prove himself or herself to be a "qualified elector" before making any challenges.  Let the courts come up with a procedure for such certifications, and force the challengers to follow it or get thrown out.

      The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. --George Bernard Shaw

      by Categorically Imperative on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 01:21:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  What About The NJ Decision? (none)
        I still think the New Jersey decision is the strongest reed. But--as a non-lawyer--I believe it needs a district court ruling to be enforced in Ohio. This would go before Dlott and Adams.  Please correct me if I am wrong.

        Operation 'Fool Me Once' -- Targeting Papers That Endorsed Bush in 2000

        by Paul Rosenberg on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 01:32:45 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  NJ decision (none)
          IIRC, the NJ decision only says that they can't use the 35,000-name list of voters as the litmus test of challenging; it won't stop challenging altogether.  To be binding legal precedent, you'd have to get a district court decision in Ohio, that's true.  The easier route, however, might be to get the Sec of State in Ohio to use the NJ decision as a good enough reason to issue a memo barring the use of the list.  

          However it is done, the NJ decision should be used as a way to throw a wrench into the plans of the thugs.

          The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. --George Bernard Shaw

          by Categorically Imperative on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 01:47:01 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thanks For The Clarification (none)
            And yes, I realize that the NJ case doesn't stop the process of challenging. But without the 35,000 name list, the act of challenging is pretty pointless, IMHO.  I think it would really take the wind out of their sails.

            Operation 'Fool Me Once' -- Targeting Papers That Endorsed Bush in 2000

            by Paul Rosenberg on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 01:55:21 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yeah (none)
              The problem is: how do you prove they're using the list.  I mean, they have the list, they hand-write another list for their precinct, and go to the polling place with that list.  Ultimately, it could probably be traced back, but probably not quickly enough to thwart the challengers.  Every bit helps, though, and I agree it's worth doing.

              The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. --George Bernard Shaw

              by Categorically Imperative on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 01:57:29 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  The NJ decision is binding in OH of its own force (none)
            No additional ruling by an Ohio federal court is needed.  An order of a U.S. District Court is binding throughout the U.S. if the court gives it that scope.
            •  Something Seems To Be Lacking, Though (none)
              Otherwise, the lists would be out already.

              So I suppose there's just a need to clarify that the Republican Party of Ohio is an agent of the RNC.  But that's pretty much a no-brainer. Otherwise the original agreement wouldn't have been worth a teaspoon of warm spit, much less a bucket.

              Operation 'Fool Me Once' -- Targeting Papers That Endorsed Bush in 2000

              by Paul Rosenberg on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 02:20:42 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  diary on this (none)
      bushsux has a diary all about this now.
  •  Possible VERY Good News (4.00)
    The Dems went to the Supreme Court, where this will be considered in the wee hours by the Justice responsible for the Sixth Circuit, who acting alone has the power to stay the Sixth Circuit's order.  That justice, we will all be happy to consider, is none other than the author of the most ferociously eloquent dissent in Bush v. Gore -- Justice Stevens.  I am cautiously optimistic that he will shut this fiasco down.
    •  Here's the source on that... (4.00)
      "In addition, it is our understanding that the plaintiffs in Spencer have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to vacate the Sixth Circuit's stay, and the Supreme Court - or at least Justice Stevens as the Circuit Justice for the Sixth Circuit - is expected to rule on that request in the early hours of Tuesday morning."

      http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/st-ohio-litigation-spencer.html#6thCir

    •  Here's hoping... (none)

      In Britain they admit to having royalty. In the United States we pretend we don't have any, and then we elect them president.

      by Asak on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 01:24:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Ewwwwwww... EX-CELL-ENT! (none)
      Justice Stevens on watch over Ohio all day. That's good to hear.

      I already voted for Kerry. So There.

      by nyetsoup4you on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 01:24:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Technical Note (none)
      The 6th Circuit Court has stayed the district court's orders. The Supreme Court--or Stevens alone--would then vacate the stay.  I know it's a minor point. But the confusion is only going to multiply as the day goes on, so getting the terminology right is a good idea.

      Operation 'Fool Me Once' -- Targeting Papers That Endorsed Bush in 2000

      by Paul Rosenberg on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 01:36:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You are right (none)
        I posted at 4 am and was exhausted and zombified.  Correct -- Justice Stevens would be vacating the 6th Circuit's stay of the district courts' orders.  But I am a lawyer myself and even went to a very famous law school.  I mention this only because there was a whiff of condescension in your choice of words.
    •  Stevens has to go out of his way (none)
      to appear non-partisan.  If he appears to favor Kerry -- my inlaws will be bitching about the biased supreme court for the next 4 years.  I guess we already know that this is a huge divisive political mess fast approaching civil unrest.  Might as well order a small turkey for just my wife and I.  

      Stevens has taken on some of the responsibilities of Rehnquist.  I assume that doesn't reduce his control over the 6th circuit.

      As long as the supreme court is political -- how about Chief Justice William Jefferson Clinton.  

  •  Is this grounds for impeachment of these judges? (none)
    Can this decision be grounds for impeachment of these judges later?

    I already voted for Kerry. So There.

    by nyetsoup4you on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 01:23:01 AM PST

  •  NOW I'M FUCKING PISSED!!!! (none)
    I have really HAD IT with these Republican assholes.  Drawing and quartering followed by an eternity in the Hell Fundie Freepers believe in is too good for them--especially for that cowardly FUCK George W. Bush, who's breathed nary a word in opposition to this mass disenfranchisement of Americans (odd how neither Brokaw nor O'Reilly thought to inquire about his views on the matter!).  
    Has there been even ONE verified instance of Dem voter registration fraud in OH apart from alleged pranks involving the likes of Donald Duck, etc.?  Do these 3500+ challengers have ANY evidence of ineligibility apart from the fact that some busy Dems didn't take time off work to pick up fucking REGISTERED MAIL from the OH GOP?

    I sincerely hope that poll-workers and poll judges in these Dem communities are prepared to  deal swiftly and forcefully with frivolous challenges, and place under immediate arrest those who impede the voting process.  The news media should be interviewing any would-be voter who's forced to give up due to the wait, and must hold the Bush campaign accountable.  

    And if this turns into another FL, my married white unhip 30-something 6'2"-250 here-to-fore non-violent ass is donning a black hoodie and getting on a plane.  There is simply no goddamn way we are going to take this brown-shirt, Jim Crow, Mississippi Burning crap lying down this time.

    "But, Saddam was a THREAT!" That's our refrain. Ask us again, and we'll tell you the same!

    by turbonium on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 01:24:16 AM PST

    •  Let the lawyers have a crack at it all first n/t (none)
      •  ...because that worked so well in Fla.? (none)
        I'm not advocating violence at the polls, but if the result is disputed, we've seen what happens: this stuff gets decided in teh court of public opinion via media spin and--tho I hate to say it--on the ground via mob action.  

        In 2000 the Rethug goon squads in FL created a presumption of victory for Bush when in fact nothing of the sort existed.  If necessary, we need to flood the zone, a full-court press from the very start.  Faces on TV where that's appropriate...lawyers in court where that's appropriate...and, yes, muscle on the streets where that's appropriate.  

        "But, Saddam was a THREAT!" That's our refrain. Ask us again, and we'll tell you the same!

        by turbonium on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 01:44:48 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  But we could still win outright today! (none)
          Boies spoke today about "the margin of litigation"...i.e. is the difference in number of votes, both popular and electoral, outside the amount of votes that can be called into question in the courts?

          If so, that candidate wins outright and if they try the cases it will just be to settle law for later elections.

          Hopefully, Kerry takes so many states that he can lose BOTH OH and FL...in which case, any violence arising in those places, however provoked, will do lasting and grievious harm to the Democratic Party.

          Patience.

          •  Obviously it's best to win it going away (none)
            But this issue will never be moot or academic even if Kerry wins 500 EV.  "Forgive and forget" should be off the table for the bozos who engineered this, regardless of what happens, because it's a travesty.  

            As far as the violence/patience/etc business goes, we're talking past each other now.  Any violence at the polls tomorrow will likely be counterproductive, as you suggest--the "media black eye" strategy outlined upthread in conjunction with the various legal maneuvers represents the best short term option.

            What I had in mind while posting that rant is the vivid image of a Rethug rent-a-mob halting recounts in Dade county while James Baker III drawled insufferably in front of the cameras.  If and when that kind of thing happens, there will be value in vigorously opposing such thuggery mano a mano.  And I will be there, despite its being totally against my nature.

            "But, Saddam was a THREAT!" That's our refrain. Ask us again, and we'll tell you the same!

            by turbonium on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 02:06:55 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  This is the image I'm using... (4.00)
    ...in posts urging people to recommend this diary. I'm hanging out now just waiting for the open thread to hit 250 comments so that it flips over and hopefully I can get it near the top and it will be around for awhile and get more recommendations for this diary.

    And anyone whose reading this, if you haven't recommended this diary please do so now. It deserves to be near the top of the reommended list throughout tommorrow.

    photo hosting and image hosting by ImageVenue.com

    •  UPDATE... (none)
      ...well, I managed to get it near the top of an Open Thread, plus on the latest frontpage post for the election.

      Catching some flak for it, but that's nothing new to this old warrior and if it builds the recommendations then that's all that counts.

  •  I just thought of something (none)
    Wasn't there some GOP argument in 2000 (wrongly used) that you can only change the rules of the election before election day?

    Because the 6th election stealing circuit made their ruling at 2:30 AM ELECTION DAY Ohio time.

  •  i'm off to be a challenger. (none)
    wish me luck. I'm gonna need it....

    I believe children are the future - unless we stop them now. -Homer Simpson

    by jkennerl on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 02:37:30 AM PST

  •  Interestingly, (none)
    on top of all this commotion, Bush intends a campaign stop in Columbus today, during the election.  I can just imagine all the exclusion zones and snarled traffic this will produce.  

    Bush probably should've just declared martial law and called in Ashcroft to mark all the OH ballots on the voters' behalf.  

    "But, Saddam was a THREAT!" That's our refrain. Ask us again, and we'll tell you the same!

    by turbonium on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 02:56:41 AM PST

  •  Everyone relax (none)
    The Dems on the ground in Ohio are not stupid or inexperienced.

    Ohio judges are elected.  It will not be difficult to find one that will order the polls be kept open late to handle the crowds.

    The Dems will provide Port-a-potties and other necessities to help people deal with the long waits (plastic ponchos etc).

    Challenged voters can be quickly moved aside to fill out provisional ballots to be ajudicated later.  In the end these votes will count but the margin of victory will be such that these ballots will not be decisive.

    "Men...think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one." - Charles MacKay

    by mstein on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 03:22:07 AM PST

    •  One other thing (none)
      Consider this--

      The Republicans get their way today, but in any case, the Democratic turnout is extremely high because voters are furious.

      We win Ohio anyway, by a bigger margin than we would have.

      We win Pennsylvania, and also Florida because voters there are also angry, from their own situation and from hearing the news about this.

      Then, we go on to win the electoral college by a wider margin than is needed.

      Then, Kerry becomes President.

      and the Republicans go out the way they came in, surrounded by charges of intimidation, fraud, cooercion, intervention by the courts....

      and the rest of us resume the kind of America we want to live in.

    •  Late helps a little (none)
      But it doesn't bring back those who have jobs, busy lives etc and can't wait. This is shameful, shameful, shameful - and the criminal media who treat it all as a game won't even report it for what it is. Friends and colleagues from other countries instantly see it and it adds to the USA = bannana republic meme which is fully entrenched in Europe. I am originally from Ohio -it has been a shameful season and a shameful day for my home state.

      Friends don't let friends watch cable news.

      by JP Stormcrow on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 04:36:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site