Politicians are aiming to disenfranchise voters. They’re setting policy and filing suits to ensure that some Ohioans shouldn’t have flexibility in voting, and limiting the chances that these voters have to cast their ballots.
Republicans pushing for HB 194? Nope.
Obama for American and the Democratic National Committee filed suit last month in order to ensure that some Ohioans aren’t able to cast their votes; and not just any Ohioans—our men and women in uniform.
The campaign argues that military voters and their families have presented no good reason to have special flexibility in voting. In fact, they Obama campaign has called it “arbitrary” and unconstitutional.
Wasn’t it just a few months ago that these same Democrats were arguing that uniform regulation of elections across all of Ohio’s counties disenfranchised voters? Wasn’t it just a few months ago that these same Democrats cried foul that the Ohio legislature limit—uniformly mind you—absentee voting from 35 days to 21 days.
And yet, Democrats now want to limit voting access to military families. Where’s the consistency of message?
I’m sure it has nothing to do with military support for Mitt Romney at nearly 60% while Obama flounders at 35%. Democrats wouldn’t let politics get in the way of ensuring that every American has the right to vote, would they?
Given this lawsuit, that’s exactly what Obama is doing—playing politics with the votes of those who protect our country.
The fact of the matter is, military voters, especially those stationed overseas, face limitations that can make it difficult to vote. The Ohio legislature recognized that when granting them special flexibility in making their voices heard.
Oh, and it was approved unanimously by the House and Senate.
Every Democrat in the Ohio legislature agreed with these provisions last year, making this move by the Obama campaign nothing more than petty politics, all at the expense of the men and women who put their lives on the line to defend our country.
Proving once again that Obama cares only about his reelection, America be damned.
Cross-posted at GOHP Blog.
Are you kidding me? Even your pals at the Dispatch disproved this rumor over the weekend.
ReplyDeleteIt's the other way around: the lawsuit was to restore the three days for EVERYONE that the Military already gets.
Vardon even tweeted this: "Ok. ANY suggestion that Obama's lawsuit seeks to limit voting for military families is untrue. Such came from Team Romney Fri and Sat...cont"
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/08/04/early-voting.html
Spin is one thing. This is just a lie.
I agree Joseph! Seems nobody wants to "read" the lawsuit or they are feigning ignorance and confusion. Ohio HB 194, and subsequently HB 224 and SB 295 passed by the Republican dominated legislature shortened the time period on early voting by 3 days. That is 3 days that all Ohio voters had available to vote, for the last 5 years that they do not have now. That is restricting voting. 93,000 Ohio voters voted during that 3 day period last election, now that 3 days is gone. Read the lawsuit. What the lawsuit is seeking is very easy to understand even for a non-lawyer like me. The Ohio military voting rights have been and will remain unaffected by any of this.This lawsuit,as I read it, does not restrict Military voting in any way. I have read the entire lawsuit and it is not about the Military, it is about giving back the 3 days of early voting that was afforded to all Ohio voters, utilized by 93,000 voters in the last election, that was taken away...
DeleteActually, their lawsuit is quite vague and is causing a lot of confusion. It can read either way. Here is the key wording from the suit:
ReplyDelete“A preliminary and permanent order prohibiting the Defendants…from implementing or enforcing lines 863 and 864 of Sec. 3509.03 (I) in HB 224, and/or the SB 295 enactment of Ohio Revised Code § 3509.03 with the HB 224 amendments, thereby restoring in-person early voting on the three days immediately preceding Election Day for all eligible Ohio voters;"
If you throw out HB224, then NOBODY has in person early voting over the weekend. The suit states "restoring it to everybody", but that's not what killing HB224 would do.
Usually I'll give you guys some leeway on your creative readings of things, but in this case, GOHP is just plain wrong. If you throw out HB224, then the law returns to the way it was before the bill changed it.
ReplyDeleteBefore HB224, early voting ended on the Monday before the election. After HB224, early voting ended on the Friday before the election.
Throwing out HB224 means everyone gets to vote early until Monday.
http://www.plunderbund.com/2012/08/07/the-obamaodp-lawsuit-would-restore-early-voting-for-all-ohioans/
Wow, yet another blatantly false blog post at ThirdBasePolitics.
ReplyDeleteWhat's even more sad is you guys pushed this after PolitiFact and countless experts have said the claim is entirely false.
But I love Nick's, well it could be interrupted to mean this if you just ignore the parts in Obama's suit which expressly refute such an interpretation defense. Amusing as always.
Here's where the confusion comes in, fellas:
ReplyDeleteBefore 224, Ohio law allowed early voting over the weekend thru Monday. But it was up to each precinct whether they wanted to stay open or not. Since it would cost them money to stay open over the weekend, most chose not to. So the law didn't apply evenly to all Ohioans.
If you kill 224, you go back to precincts having the option whether to accept ballots over the weekend through Monday, meaning that military in most precincts would lose those days.
All of the 15 military groups who filed a motion to intervene disagree with you.
So now you're defending arbitrary differences in early voting by saying that if it struck down it would allow... arbitrary differences in early voting. There is no legitimate government interest in denying voters in Ohio the right to cast an early ballot the three days until the election, especially when they can cast them earlier. We've been able to do it just fine for several elections now. The only reason it was banned was because those days were days that were predominantly ballots cast by Democratic voters. Pure and simple.
DeleteWow. What a deceitful post. This is an egregious form of "journalism."
ReplyDeleteNick, you are correct. If Obama's lawsuit against the military is successful, we will not revert to universal voting for everyone in Ohio the weekend before the election. We will revert to pre-HB194, where we had a patchwork of voting times and dates, determined by local Boards of Election. From the ACLU Ohio, Jan. 2012:
ReplyDelete"Early voting hours may vary. Call your local Board of Elections to be sure what days and times they are open for early voting."
From Politifact, April, 2011:
"That’s because while Ohio’s early voting window is 35 days long, it excludes certain weekend days so really there are only between 27 and 31 days when early voting can actually occur. And, it can vary from county to county, depending on their policies concerning weekend hours."
The Obama campaign is not being truthful when he is saying that this lawsuit will extend early voting days to ALL Ohioans. It will, however, reduce the days military voters are permitted to vote.
Nick, I find your patience with those "anonymous's" incredible.
ReplyDeleteNick's right. "Universal" voting would not be restored if HB 224 is nixed. But that's not even the crux of this issue. The Obama campaign is arguing Ohio "cannot arbitrarily grant [voting] right[s] to some voters and not others..." in reference to military families.
ReplyDeleteIt's not "arbitrary" to give our men and women in uniform greater flexibility in voting. But that's what Obama seems to believe...
It is arbitrary to say one group gets that flexibility but ban it for all other voters. There is no rationale explanation for that disparity in treatment, especially when before the law all Ohio voters were afforded that flexibility with no problems.
Delete