Obama for America v Husted (Ohio Early Voting)

Whatever4 · **Posted:** Fri Aug 03, 2012 4:32 pm

Seen in the wild:

Quote:

Do you think Obama will be able to suppress the military vote in Ohio like he is suing to do?

On July 17th, the Obama for America Campaign, the Democratic National Committee and the Ohio Democratic Party filed suit in OH to strike down part of that state's law governing voting by members of the military. Their suit said that part of the law is "arbitrary" with "no discernible rational basis."

I think its unconscionable that we as a nation wouldn't make it as easy as possible for members of the military to vote. They arguably have more right to vote than the rest of us, since it is their service and sacrifice that ensures we have the right to vote in the first place.

Ummm.... no. Case here. http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/li ... Husted.php

Did this claim appear on Limbaugh or Fox or something? They have no shame. [-X

Adrianinflorida · **Posted:** Fri Aug 03, 2012 5:22 pm

I saw that too. They can't comprehend the fact that OFA wants everyone to be able to have every opportunity to vote, not just the Armed Forces.

DaveMuckey · **Posted:** Fri Aug 03, 2012 6:44 pm

For the life of me, I cannot see how anyone in the armed forces would be harmed by this case. Are all of those former armed forces organizations tools for the RNC?

Mikedunford · **Posted:** Fri Aug 03, 2012 7:04 pm

DaveMuckey wrote:

For the life of me, I cannot see how anyone in the armed forces would be harmed by this case. Are all of those former armed forces organizations tools for the RNC?

I can. As the armed forces organizations note in their brief, a ruling that the disparate treatment of military and non-military voters is unconstitutional might lead the court to impose the relief that OFA wants (extending the civilian deadline), the court would be within its rights to instead order a different fix (cutting the military back to what the civilians are allowed). This would not be good for the military voters.

And, by the way, most of those organizations might be a little right-leaning, but they are not RNC tools. Many are good groups that do good work.

They also have good reason to want to see this suit defeated. A ruling that it is unconstitutional to extend benefits to the military that are not granted civilians would not be in the best interests of their members.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23560

So you don't have to go back and forth...

District Court Documents

Complaint pdf file (filed 7/17/12)

Motion for Preliminary Injunction pdf file (filed 7/17/12)

Declaration of Donald J. McTigue pdf file (filed 7/17/12)

Military Groups' Motion to Intervene pdf file (filed 8/1/12)

Defendants' Memorandum Contra Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction pdf file (filed 8/1/12)

DaveMuckey · **Posted:** Fri Aug 03, 2012 7:40 pm

Thanks, Mike. I was thinking that the early voting deadlines should be the same for all, ie through Monday. It didn't dawn on me that the court might go the other way.

Edit: But I still don't see how OFA arguing that early voting for all through Monday could be misunderstood as cutting off military voting on Friday. That's not how I'm reading it.

kimba · **Joined:** Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:24 pm **Posts:** 6633

They argued in federal court today and representing the Obama campaign was none other than Robert F. Bauer.

Quote:

“For the first time, the vast majority of Ohio voters will come fully eligible to vote to an open polling place and find that they cannot vote,” said Robert F. Bauer, an attorney representing the Obama campaign. “The magnitude of that injury is apparent.”

But Economus, an appointee of President Bill Clinton , interrupted: “It’s not that they cannot vote. There are so many other options, and Ohio is probably one of the most liberal states in the country in regard to voting rights.”

Bauer replied: “I think it is a bedrock principle that when the polls are open, they’re open to all.”

“Once it is decided to provide early voting, there are equal protection constraints,” Bauer said. “We support voting for military and non-military alike.”

kimba · **Joined:** Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:24 pm **Posts:** 6633

As far as I can tell, Judge Economus hasn't cancelled the hearing tomorrow morning, but unfortunately I'm not going to make it over there to see it. I have family arriving tomorrow and I have a million things to do before they arrive. I'm sorry for over-promising, but the Court here is a site for a Cameras in the Court pilot program, so maybe the judge will allow filming/broadcast and everybody will get to see it. Nevertheless, I think the media will be all over this one, in particular the Columbus Dispatch political team, so I think we'll get good reporting.

Husted decided to comply with at least one federal judge's order, directing all 88 counties to count provisional ballots. Maybe Husted thinks complying with Judge Marbley's order will make Judge Economus forget he hasn't complied with the other order.

DaveMuckey · **Posted:** Thu Sep 13, 2012 1:56 pm

Are there any updates yet?

kimba · **Joined:** Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:24 pm **Posts:** 6633

Judge denies Ohio elections chief's request

Quote:

A federal judge on Wednesday denied a request by Ohio's elections chief to hold off in enforcing his court's order on disputed early voting days in the presidential battleground state.
...
U.S. District Judge Peter Economus in Columbus said Wednesday that Husted failed to demonstrate his likelihood of succeeding on appeal and didn't provide "sufficiently compelling reasons" for the stay.
...
"Without further evidence of damaging 'voter confusion,' this Court is reluctant to stay its Order on such a speculative and slim 'public interest' argument," Economus wrote.

Husted spokesman Matt McClellan said the secretary of state would comply with the judge's ruling while continuing to appeal the court's decision.

DaveMuckey · **Posted:** Thu Sep 13, 2012 5:34 pm

kimba wrote:

Judge denies Ohio elections chief's request

Quote:

A federal judge on Wednesday denied a request by Ohio's elections chief to hold off in enforcing his court's order on disputed early voting days in the presidential battleground state.
...
U.S. District Judge Peter Economus in Columbus said Wednesday that Husted failed to demonstrate his likelihood of succeeding on appeal and didn't provide "sufficiently compelling reasons" for the stay.
...
"Without further evidence of damaging 'voter confusion,' this Court is reluctant to stay its Order on such a speculative and slim 'public interest' argument," Economus wrote.

Husted spokesman Matt McClellan said the secretary of state would comply with the judge's ruling while continuing to appeal the court's decision.

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

Obama for America v Husted (Ohio Early Voting)

Who is online