Breaking! OH - Court revives Voter I.D. measure - live discussion at noon.

The Columbus Dispatch announced that voters must provide I.D. on absentee ballots.

The 6 th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order last night (Sunday, 29 Oct 2006) staying a lowercourt ruling from last week that had put the ID provision on hold.

There will be a live discussion live on-line at the Columbus Dispatch. You can write them right now and ask a question before the live event or during it. It is very important that the cumbersome I.D. requirement be removed. Please follow me below the fold.

Most of my research in how this will effect the 2006 election has been focused in Franklin County. In Franklin County, Ohio, approximately 5,000 absentee ballots (out of 100,000) may not be counted because the voter put the wrong license number on their ballot. An Ohio driver's license has two numbers. One over their picture (on the top right side) and one on the left side. If you see the link, you will see a picture of an Ohio Driver's license. Sorry, I don't know how to post pictures.  

The other problem with the new voter I.D. rules is for the voters that vote on election day (November 7th). In Franklin County Ohio, registered voters received a newsletter in the mail in the last days of September. This newsletter is to inform the voters of the new Voter ID laws and includes an absentee ballot request form.

A post-office snafu delayed the delivery of voter information and absentee-ballot applications to thousands of Franklin County residents.

Most registered voters received the state-required mailing Friday or Saturday, more than a week after an elections board vendor submitted them for delivery. Director Matthew Damschroder said the agency paid nearly $283,000 for first-class delivery of 740,000 newsletters but was told they got mixed in with third-class mail.

Also from this article...

The state law doesn't allow information to be forwarded to voters who've moved from the address at which they registered. The third-class rate was cheaper, but Damschroder said the county would have had to pay postage for about 100,000 newsletters it expects to be returned.

The actual number of newsletters returned in Franklin County alone was 150,000 (out of 760K registered voters). So what happens to the 150,000 registered voters in Franklin County that had their newsletters returned to the Ohio BOE?  Well...

For the returned 60-day notice, the signature book will be printed with a STOP sign to the left of the box for the voter's signature. If the voter shows a valid ID that matches the name and address in the signature book, the voter can vote a regular ballot. If the address does not match, the voter must vote a provisional ballot.

Please keep in mind that this is just one county.  I have no idea how many people will be "marked" to vote provisionally in all the other counties. If a person has moved, they have to show up to the correct polling location where they currently live and show identification that has their current address. Obviously, if their new polling location differs from the one they are currently listed in, the will be forced to cast a provisional ballot because their name will not be on the registration list.

Please go here and join the live discussion at noon. Also: From Renee in Ohio's diary (see link in 1st comment):

Dear folks concerned about potential Election Day chaos The lawyers managing the lawsuit challenging the Ohio Voter ID law - Subodh Chandra, Caroline Gentry, & Ritchey Hollenbaugh - are trying to quickly gather even more evidence that will help with the suit. We need this information as soon as possible. If you think you might have first-hand information about the different ways this law is being interpreted and applied across Ohio, we ask you to send an email to: [e-mail].

•  Please read Renee in Ohio's

  <http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/28/211538/28 excellent diary> for more information. Also mark on your calendar's November 1st. KMarkus made an excellent <http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/10/28/211538/28/118#118 comment on this diary>.

  I'm one of the lawyers working on the Voter ID case in Ohio.

  The current temporary restraining order, which impacts absentee votes cast by mail or in person at a Board of Elections, expires at 5:00 pm on Wednesday, 11/1.  On the morning of 11/1, at 9:00 am, Judge Marbley will begin taking evidence on our Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.  That motion seeks to prevent the use of the ID requirements for absentee ballots through to Election Day and for voting at the polls on Election Day.

  The best things folks can do to help is redistribute the post above about our efforts to identify additional witnesses as widely throughout Ohio as possible.  The more individual incidents we can document, the stronger our argument will be on 11/1.

  The second best thing folks can do is encourage everyone they know to vote early either by mail or in person.  Take a car load of friend down to the Board of Elections or organize a group from work to go to the Board.  Cast your vote early and get your friends to do so too!

  by franziskaner on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 08:34:27 AM PDT

  •  I forgot to preview.

    Sorry. I will try again. Please see Renee's excellent diary for more information. Also mark on your calendar - November 1st. KMarkus made an excellent comment on her diary.

    by franziskaner on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 08:48:29 AM PDT

•  It will take an overwhelming show of public sup't

  to overcome the nefarious and never-ending election shenanigans of this utterly corrupt and immoral administration.  They are so addicted to power that it will take a convincing majority of Americans, and Ohioas in this instance, to clearly tell the cretins that it is time to leave office.  

  Races that are too close will simply be too easy to steal... but my family will be prepared for any aftermath....and we will not go down without a vicious fight.

  by Doolittle Sothere on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 08:36:32 AM PDT

•  Hard to believe this could decide

  the races for governor and U.S. Senator, given how wide the gap is in the polls.

  But I suppose it could decide a relatively close race for the House.

  by lysias on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 08:37:37 AM PDT

  •  Yes and we have some close

    races here in Ohio. Even OH-12 is starting to tighten up and that was leaning STRONG republican. OH-15 has Mary Jo Kilroy with a comfortable lead but I think the poll was too optimistic.

    by franziskaner on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 08:43:49 AM PDT

  •  The GOP

    will try every possible onside kick, and anything outside the rules they can get away with.

    I wonder if Bush v Gore had gone the other way if Dumya would have made a nice concession speech or if Republicans would have massively challenged the electors who showed up to elect Gore. My bet is that they'd have continued to make noise.

    by tiggers thotful spot on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 09:04:43 AM PDT

•  This is horrible

  I'm encouraging everyone in my little Ohio county to vote early.  Election day promises to be a complete nightmare.

  I have a question--What's going to happen to all the ballots cast last week that didn't need an ID?  Will they still count?

  by Buckeye BattleCry on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 08:52:32 AM PDT

  •  I don't know.

    That's the thing. The Frankin Co. BOE even had it on their website that said absentee ballots do not need an I.D.  I already sent a question the Columbus Dispatch and I am hoping they will answer that.  I just realized after posting my diary that the hearing on Wednesday may be moot since Chandra et al will be taking this reversal to the Supreme Court.  

    by franziskaner on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 08:56:01 AM PDT

  •  Great Question btw -

    I can't believe they would tell voterst that an I.D. is not required and then change it 3-4 days later.  Absurd!

    by franziskaner on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 09:07:40 AM PDT

    •  Imagine how confused all the BOE people are

      The rules keep changing day to day.  I sure as heck can't make any sense of it all.

      by Buckeye BattleCry on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 09:25:20 AM PDT

    •  "They" is not appropriate here as there were

      different and distinct courts involved.  The ruling appealed from was by a District Court Judge, this decision was by the Circuit Court of Appeals.  It will be interesting to see what the District Court does with the motion returnable on Wednesday and whether any injunction issued then will be similarly taken up and stayed.  This one may really go down to the wire.

      by MajorFlaw on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 09:28:42 AM PDT

      •  Also worth keeping in mind is that the SCOTUS

        circuit judge for this district is JP Stevens, who would hear any petition made on an emergency basis.

        by MajorFlaw on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 09:40:58 AM PDT

        •  Thank you MajorFlaw.

          I am still confused but you sound like you are very familiar with the legal system. So what is going on right now?  You mentioned that the District Court will have to do something with the motion returnable on Wednesday.  But the lawyers Subodh Chandra, Caroline Gentry and Ritchy Hollenbaugh will be taking the 6th court of appeals to the Supreme Court.  Is this the same thing?  What should we be looking for?

          by franziskaner on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 09:47:59 AM PDT

          •  I would be looking for what the District Court

            does on Wednesday and what may be some frantic activity thereafter.  To answer your question, the appeal of the Circuit Court's stay to the SCOTUS is not the subject of Wenesday's motion.  The District Court issued a stay against requiring ID for absentee voters last Fri and scheduled a hearing on whether to stay the use of IDs for election day voters for Wed.  The Circuit Court stayed the stay of the District Court however it has no effect on any decision the District Court may issue on Wed or after.

            It can be assumed that, if the District Court holds a hearing on Wed and issues another stay (and any stay would not necessarily exclude the class of absentee voters covered in the prior order) that stay would also be taken up to the Circuit Court, and any stay issued by the Circuit Court may be taken up to the SCOTUS-- if time allows-- or to the circit Judge Stevens in an emergency.  

            This may just come down to a question of timing.  If the District Court is presented with enough evidence a hearing may take several days.  Conceivably the District Court could issue a stay against requiring ID from ANY voter at 5PM on Monday.  If it issues a stay earlier the Circuit Court could wait until the last minute to issue its stay.  And Stevens could issue an emergency stay five minutes before the polls open or even while voting is going on.  

            I'm not sure I've made this any clearer but I tried.

            by MajorFlaw on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 10:13:05 AM PDT

  •  Here is the response by the paper.

    They responded to my question as well as Shari's.

    How can equal access to the ballot be preserved if the i.d. requirement was set aside for a period of time and then reinstated? How is it that disenfranchisement does not loom as a greater risk to democracy than individual incedents of voter fraud? How is it that the possibility of wholesale election fraud with insecure technology does not outweigh BOTH incendents of suppression AND individual voter fraud?

    The lead story today is that the 6th court of appeals reversed the decision last week that absentee ballots did not require voter I.D. If that is the case, will the absentee ballots that were sent late last week not count even though the BOE instructed the voters that voter I.D. is NOT required?

    Two questions. This voter ID thing has me frustrated, but I guess we all just need to take ID to the polls "just in case". Q: What are you hearing from people on the voter ID legal wranglings. Are people as confused as I think? Q 2: Is there any precedent in any other state that you know of where there is a limit to the number of State Issues that can be on the ballot during any given election? It seems a limit could be less confusing to people. I'm thinking in particular about Issues 4 and 5, for example.

    Shari, Columbus OH

    How can the Board of Election direct voters to vote absentee without providing I.D. one day and then tell the voter that their absentee ballot will not count the next day? Also, why are the voters that show up in person at their BOE able to vote without showing I.D. but the voters that show up to their precinct do?

    Thank you, Jill Columbus, OH

    Darrel Rowland:  Great questions all. I wish I had some great answers.
    The bottom line is that Ohio's voter ID requirements are in flux. Where we'll end up -- who knows? Obviously we'll keep writing about it (look for a story and a Q&A in Tuesday's paper).

    Let me try to address these issues in reverse order:

    Jill, under the current law voters should not be asking for absentee ballots or casting any type of ballot without ID regardless of the method or location.

    As far as the changing rules...elections boards have been instructed to keep all absentee ballots. In theory, when the courts sort this out the judges will establish the final rules we're suppose to use in Ohio, and elections staffers will be able to put the right ballots in the right pile. Yeah, I don't like the sound of that any better than you do; and I'm sure elections officials feel the same way.

    Let's hope the "solution" is consistent, so that voters who voted under one set of rules on one day are treated the same as voters who voted under another set on another day.

    Isn't it fun when judges get involved in elections?

    Shari, I know of no other state limiting the number of issues...California is the leading example of initiatives and referendums ("propositions") on steroids. As far as State Issues 4 and 5...I think the confusion stems from the fact they essentially are competitors: if Issue 4 passes, Issue 5 will not take effect even if it passes unanimously.

    As far as taking ID to the polls...that has not changed even in the recent legal wrangling. U.S. District Court Judge Marbley's ruling last week applied only to absentee ballots, not voting on Election Day. Rules for both absentee voting AND Election Day voting are supposed to be heard Wednesday by the judge; however, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals could short circuit those plans. And before it's all over the U.S. Supreme Court could step in. But as for now, you MUST take voter ID to the polls on Election Day.

    As far as the insecure technology...like it or not, we're locked in with what we've got now in Ohio. We'll have a grand experiment on Election Day with how well it works, along with the voter-verified paper audit trails.

    Disenfranchisement vs. voter fraud has been a running debate in Ohio. Combatting the latter won out a year ago when the legislature passed the early voting law, part of a GOP-backed attempt to pre-empt a similar Reform Ohio Now issue on the ballot in November 2005. Of course now critics are saying that perhaps lawmakers acted with too much haste.

    Sorry for the lengthy answer, but as you can tell this voter ID mess is as confusing as it is controversial.

    by franziskaner on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 09:41:15 AM PDT

    •  Thank you

      I appreciate the follow up.  

      by Buckeye BattleCry on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 09:44:28 AM PDT

      •  I tried my best but

        they don 't have any anwers right now either. This is going to be a mess.  

        by franziskaner on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 09:49:43 AM PDT

        •  It's pretty telling that a rep for a newspaper

          is throwing up his hands and saying "who knows?"  Oh jeez.

          by Buckeye BattleCry on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 09:56:29 AM PDT

•  Election Integrity

  Thanks for posting this diary and using the "Election Integrity" tag.

  Folks interested in this topic are pooling information at
  http://groups.yahoo.com/...
  and check dkosopedia on Voting_Rights for further resources.

  Please think about volunteering to be a poll worker in your local precinct
  Serving_as_an_election_official

  We have to keep a close eye on the registration process, the polling stations, the ballots, and the vote count.  We have to be awake and alert every step of the way and document every attempt at theft and chicanery.

  Nobody said that democracy was easy and voting is the least you can do in a truly democratic nation.

  by gmoke on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 09:03:53 AM PDT

•  One solution would be to make it

  compulsory for all US citizens to register to vote. They would not have to actually vote, but they would have to register. I actually favor making it compulsory to vote, but I understand that most Americans do not believe in that, more's the pity. However, making it a misdemenanor not to register would ensure not only that people put the requisite effort into registering, but also that conspiring to prevent someone from registering would be a felony.

  by Batfish on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 09:11:43 AM PDT

  •  Well, I'm not sure that I agree with mandatory...

    ...registering but it would be easy enough to do.  When kids turn 18 they'd have to send in a card just like the selective service system.

    by Buckeye BattleCry on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 09:28:45 AM PDT