Thought this was over with the SCOTUS yesterday didn't ya?
WRONG.
Now another "private" lawsuit has been initiated by
David Myhal of New Albany, a Columbus suburb. Myhal is a registered Republican in Franklin County and one of his attorneys is William Todd of Columbus who has close ties to the Republican party. The Ohio Republican Party is not an official party to the lawsuit, however. - Dayton Daily News
This is big because it concerns the absentee ballots about to be opened in a weeks time. It's even a bigger story because of this:
Since Myhal is suing in state court, not federal court, the private plaintiff/government plainiff distinction that the U.S. Supreme Court relied on in throwing out the order does not apply, said Foley.
Jennifer Brunner is nowhere near out of the woods in her fight against voter suppression and by next Friday this issue could vault the Republican Party back into the drivers seat with its successful framing and now the strong possibility the absentee vote will be challenged one ballot at a time.
Here's the deal:
The Ohio Supreme Court is an all Republican show and probably along with Michigan the most partisan and shameless tool of the wingers a la big business in the Midwest.
And the connection between Myhal and the court's election campaigns is disturbing to put it mildly:
Myhal owns The 316 Group, whose clients include the Partnership for Ohio's Future, the political arm of the Ohio Chamber of Commerce. It has supported the campaigns of most of the seven justices on the all-Republican Ohio Supreme Court. The partnership is currently running television ads supporting Justices Maureen O'Connor and Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, who are up for re-election. - Cleveland Plain Dealer
So how's this not a conflict of interest for at least Maureen O'Conner and Evelyn Lundber Stratton in deciding on a very partisan lawsuit on election rules while up for re-election themselves?
If this goes as most other OSC rulings almost always go for the moneyied and the powerful then we have a bedrock ruling the Republican Party can take all the way to SCOTUS right to the eve of the election.
Myhal's case is independent of the party, although he acknowledges his personal and professional connections.
I voted absentee two weeks ago in Ohio. I just moved back six months ago and am newly registered here. I just got a new driver's license a few weeks back, long after I registered. And now I face the prospect of my registration info not being updated with the new BMV number and my ballot being tossed in the "deal with when convenient" file.
This is serious folks since the absentee vote is being challenged as untrustworthy along with the poll vote. And the greater strategy of calling into question the whole process in Ohio will most probably throw the election here into a chaos like Florida 2000 was.
Look for another challenge at the U.S. Supreme court by next Saturday.
Update:
There's been a number of legal questions about how this could wind up on the Ohio Supreme Courts lap so quickly and electiledisfunction came up with the Mandamus:
EXPEDITED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This expedited action is brought in the name of the State on the relation of David Myhal, who is requesting a Writ of Mandamus. This action seeks this Court's urgent intervention to remedy the Secretary of State's steadfast refusal to fully implement the Statewide Voter Registration Database (SWVRD) in a manner required by both federal and state law - in essence, to share "mismatch" information regarding a registrant's driver's license or social security information with county boards of elections in a manner that gives those boards a meaningful opportunity to investigate the mismatches. Indeed, two federal courts have now clarified that the Help American Vote Act of 2002 ("HAVA") requires the Secretary to provide country boards of elections with such meaningful access to the "mismatch" data. Ohio Republican Party v.
Brunner, F.3d , 2008 WL 4571959 (6th Cir. Oct. 14, 2008) (en bane); _ F. Supp. 2d ^2008 WL 4560772 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 9, 2008); see also Brunner v. Ohio Republican Party, 555 U.S. (2008) (vacating TRO on jurisdictional grounds) The Court's expedited review of this petition is warranted in light of the need to ensure that the Secretary complies with her legal obligations prior to the opening of absentee ballots, which is scheduled to occur as early as October 25 according to a recent Directive from the office of Secretary. Absent this Court's immediate intervention, the votes of qualified Ohio voters risk being diluted, and public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process will be severely undermined.
Thanks Electiledisfunction.
So we are looking at an expedited process to insure a decision is made before next Saturday if any thought there was no reason to be alarmed by the stealthy nature of the coalescing forces in play here.