Daily Kos

Ohio Poll "watchers" back in play???

by jalby

Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 10:47:38 PM PDT

I am sooooo confused.  I saw this over on Freep saying that the Ohio Poll "watchers" are back on:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1265931/posts

And I went over to that Moritz's guys site and it says an appeal was filed at 11:37 EST:

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/

So the timeline looks like they decided to have election watchers.  I guess I'll find out tomorrow sometime what actually has happened.

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 26 comments

  •  Fuck (none / 0)

    AP: 6th Circuit overrules district courts, allows poll watchers

    I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day
    Neither is California High Speed Rail

    by eugene on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 10:52:34 PM PDT

  •  Associated Press story link on this - just went up (none / 0)

    link to AP story

    faith is no substitute for empirical evidence

    by Rudyard on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 10:54:07 PM PDT

  •  when will they play fair (none / 0)

    This is ridiculous.  So much for impartial judges.  They should be ashamed of themselves, letting one party intimidate voters who might cast thier ballot for someone other than George W. Bush.  Doesn't sound too different than some of the regimes that Bush's administration has sought to condemn.

    by hmdwyer on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 10:54:59 PM PDT

    •  This will blow up in the GOP's face (none / 0)

      When voters show up tomorrow and see challengers, they're gonna get really pissed off. The GOP will lose more votes due to this than they will gain via exclusion of Democrats.

      I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day
      Neither is California High Speed Rail

      by eugene on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 10:57:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree (none / 0)

        ...it's more likely than not to just piss off a lot of people waiting in the long lines.  Also, maybe lending perspective, while there is some mention in a couple of the news stories that the rules for determining validity of a challenge aren't clear-cut, I see in an LA Times article that the criteria seem to be simply these:  

        "Under state law a person may challenge a voter by alleging that he or she is not a U.S. citizen, is not old enough to vote or has not lived in the county for 30 days. Voters who are successfully challenged would still have the right under federal law to cast a provisional ballot, but those would not be counted on Election Day." http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/2004/la-na-ohiovote2nov02,0,3514993.story?coll=la-home-headline s

        I mean, not a US citizen, not old enough, or not resident 30 days--are these really fuzzy areas??  If that's all there is to it, I don't think I'd be that concerned about getting counted eventually, if I'm someone who forgot to bring a document with me on Nov. 2.  But if anyone knows if some weird ass criteria apply in evaluating the challenge post-election day, please tell me.

        While I've not seen any text of the decisions, I'd guess the two federal district court judges in Ohio ought to go down as unsung heroes (though unsuccessful ones).  I don't see the 6th Circuit Appeals justices making more than a knee-jerk decision in the time they had.

        by caspian on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 11:14:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  agree with you for two reasons (none / 0)

        One, is that this gives the Democratic party the high road. No matter what lipstick gets put on Voter Suppression Pigs they still wallow in the same sty as the voter suppression tactics of the old south.  This could not only drive off immediate moderate voters, it'll surely have a long term impact on the GOP.

        Two, there will be Republicans standing in those lines as well. Every time a voter has to go through the hassle perhaps some GOP voter on his lunch hour will be forced to leave the line and go back to work. And some social liberals and moderates aren't going to like what they're seeing.

        Preventing fraud is fine, but if Republicans really want to do it maybe they should stop whining about local taxes and get adequate funding for their local election boards, county clerks, and registrars, so registrations can be handled before the elections.

        by greatbasin2 on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 11:15:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Not what you think... (none / 0)

    ...see here for details or go to some previous open threads.

    It is good though that the Freepers are hyper-ventilating over nonsense. Keeps 'em busy.

    But maybe you should avoid such sites for the time being. Too much positive going on to waste time there.

    by couldbeanyone on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 10:56:24 PM PDT

  •  I'm not worried (none / 0)

    As long as we have out poll-watchers and lawyers ready to go, I'm not worried one bit. You don't understand how pissed off minorities are right now and how much they want to make sure their vote is counted. This intimidation shit will backfire big time.

    Mikhail Khaimov San Francisco, CA

    by Tsarrio on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 11:01:38 PM PDT

  •  New York Times as well.. (none / 0)

    but the story has enough of the previous story in it that you just think to yourself "did I read the headline right?"....

    my response to their shit:

    not this time

    One party challenging voters at the polls is a mistake of tragic and idiotic proportions.

    I cry for this nation and what some of our brothers and sisters will see tommorrow..

    Get involved...VOLUNTEER...yes.we.can.

    by kid oakland on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 11:09:09 PM PDT

  •  I hope they show up (none / 1)

    in their P. Diddy 'Vote or Die' shirts.  Then we'll see who gets challenged!

    "When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?". - J.M. Keynes

    by Beauregard on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 11:11:33 PM PDT

  •  The elderly are so easily (none / 0)

    intimidated, and these challengers will also want to pick fights and shut down polling places. OH is going to be very close and this may push it over the top for the GOP. I hope not, but their thugs were so successful in Florida 4 years ago.

    The GOP always use the courts to get their way. The most frightening part is how often they prevail with these kinds of tactics. I hope the Democrats are ready, because we're going to see the elderly and minorities brutalized physically, mentally, everything, with no repercussions for the GOP.

    by JamesB3 on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 11:16:52 PM PDT

  •  Here's the argument (none / 0)

    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.

    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.

    You can't be on the team, if you're not in the choir. Sorry.

    by peeder on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 11:17:53 PM PDT

  •  The Supreme Court will reverse the 6th Cir. (none / 0)

    Sadly, they will do it after Election Day.

    by Ultra on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 11:25:45 PM PDT

  •  Bushies already took it to federal court? (none / 0)

    What the fuck happened to state's rights? This is too much like 2000.

    "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." - George W Bush

    by jfern on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 11:42:45 PM PDT

    •  federal v state (none / 0)

      In this respect unfortunately they're within their rights, as the Dems filed the original complaint in federal district court, based on federal constitutional grounds.  Appeals go to up the ladder to the 6th Cir, then maybe the Supremes, but we all know the Supremes won't entertain it on this day.  It's not obvious to me the Republicans are wrong on the issues from a strictly legal point of view; but then there is their obvious lack of basic conscience and decency.

      by caspian on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 11:58:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  God fucking damn it (none / 0)

    If they steal this, all hell is breaking loose.

    "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." - George W Bush

    by jfern on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 11:44:13 PM PDT

  •  only 3 grounds allowed (none / 0)

    ove 30 should probably be pretty easily disposed of.

    rsdient for 30 days  --  here documentation might be needed ..  but here also the counter challenge might be prove that they aren't:  that is, if you mailed registered mail to try to challenge them and it was not returned as a bad address, what is your basis for challenge [one story said they were still seeking to work off of original list that was thrown out]

    final one is of citizenship  here methinks anyone with a diriver's license will be safe, and/or anyone who has ever voted before in that precinct.

    Thus only newly registered voters might be successfully challenged.  Presuming that they are going to target predominantly minority and p;erhpas predominantly univesity-based precicints, the challenging might not be as effective as they hope, and might have the real potential to backfire

    I also think and emrgency hearing for en banc might get deicsion overtutnred fairly quickly, even moreq uickly thant the Supreme Court, which wluld probably be reluctant to get involved without such a hearing.   That en banc would be looking at a Court which is titled Republican does not mean that the reulsts would be foreordained, since one of twodistrict court judges was appointed by Bush 43.

    IANAL

    also, thre are 4 election judges in each precinct, no more that two from any party.   Suppose a predominantly black precinct in Cleveland  -- do you think they will get three votes to uphold the challenge?  Unlikely.  Does anyon know what happens to challenge if judges split 2-2?  Does it die, or is it upheld?  Would a Black, even a Republican black, want to keep other blacks from voting?  Isn't there a lot of local resentment that this issue is being pushed bypeople from outside OH?

    do we still have a Republic and a Constitution if our elected officials will not stand up for them on our behalf?

    by teacherken on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 02:45:27 AM PDT

Permalink | 26 comments