Skip to main content

Short diary (at least for the moment). You may recall that John Husted chose to ignore the plain meaning of the court's reinstatement of early voting in Ohio.

Today the Obama for America campaign fired back, in pretty plain language.

Via Moritz Law Election Law Blog: PDF

In its August 31, 2012 decision, this Court ordered “that in-person early voting IS RESTORED on the three days immediately preceding Election Day for all eligible Ohio  voters”, specifically listing Saturday, November 3, 2012, Sunday, November 4, 2012, and  Monday, November 5, 2012 as days that are to be restored. The Court further anticipated that  Defendant Husted would direct all Ohio elections boards to maintain a “specific, consistent  schedule on those three days.”  

 Notwithstanding the Court's injunction, on September 4, 2012, Defendant Husted  issued a directive that provides that no hours will be established until after a decision on the  Defendants' appeal of the Court's order, because “the constitutionality of the statute setting in- person absentee voting hours is still subject to court review and it would [ ] confuse voters to set  hours now that the court may change later.” The directive further “strictly prohibits county boards of elections from determining hours for the Friday, Saturday, Sunday, or Monday before  the election.”  

 Having sought no stay, either in this Court or the Court of Appeals,  the State appears to  believe it can issue one on its own authority. Nowhere in this Directive does the Secretary  identify the legal basis for this extraordinary action, much less how it accords with the well- established principle that “[i]t is for the court of first instance to determine the question of the  validity of the law, and until its decision is reversed for error by orderly review, either by itself or  by a higher court, its orders based on its decision are to be respected. . . .”  United States v.  United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258, 294 (1947).  See also North American Coal  Corp. v. Local Union 2262, United Mine Workers of America, 497 F.2d 459 (6th Cir. 1974)  (injunction of court, even if invalid, still must be obeyed until and unless overturned on appeal);  Blackard v. Memphis Area Medical Center for Women, Inc., 262 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 2001)  (parties bound by an injunction are obligated to abide by that injunction when it is in effect, even  if it is later determined to be erroneous).

 Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court act as appropriate and necessary to enforce  its Order issued August 31, 2012.

Update: Just Bob commented on this wrinkle in the comments below:

It isn't just the Obama campaign that is upset over Ohio's decision to ignore a federal court order instructing them to reinstate early voting during the three day period before the November election. The federal judge who issued the decision seems pretty perturbed too, ordering Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted to show up to a Sept. 13 hearing in-person.

"This Court hereby ORDERS that Defendant Secretary of State Jon Husted personally attend the hearing," U.S. District Judge Peter Economus wrote in an order Wednesday afternoon.


(Crossing my fingers that the edit and Update takes hold this time!)

4:07 PM PT: UPDATE - On questions of contempt of court, Rick Hasen's Election Law Blog has this to say:

UPDATE: OFA has filed a motion which would more directly require SOS Husted to set early voting hours.  OFA did not raise the issue of contempt, apparently because the trial court’s initial order did not directly state that Husted must set these hours.
This certainly makes it sound as if SoS Husted is less than likely to suffer anything worse than a very public embarrassment.
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

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site