WWTBAM Bored

In a two-page per curiam decision, the Supreme Court granted an emergency stay of the District Court's decision granting a TRO requested by the Ohio Republican Party regarding implementatioin of the Help America Vote Act. The Court did not address the merits, but concluded that the plaintiff had not made a sufficient showing that the Act was subject to enforcement by private plaintiffs.

The net result is a victory for the position held by the Ohio Secretary of State. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote: The net result is a victory for the position held by the Ohio Secretary of State. --Bob

Which is?

For those of us who don't keep up with the District Court News...

MarleysGh0st wrote:

Bob78164 wrote: The net result is a victory for the position held by the Ohio Secretary of State. --Bob

Which is?

For those of us who don't keep up with the District Court News...

It will be easier for newly registered voters to vote. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

MarleysGh0st wrote:

Bob78164 wrote: The net result is a victory for the position held by the Ohio Secretary of State. --Bob

Which is?

For those of us who don't keep up with the District Court News...

It will be easier for newly registered voters to vote. --Bob

That's one way to look at it.
It will also be easier to register non existant people and have them vote for Obama.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

MarleysGh0st wrote: Which is?

For those of us who don't keep up with the District Court News...

It will be easier for newly registered voters to vote. --Bob

That's one way to look at it.
It will also be easier to register non existant people and have them vote for Obama.

You got any actual evidence that's been happening? --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:It will be easier for newly registered voters to vote. --Bob

That's one way to look at it.
It will also be easier to register non existant people and have them vote for Obama.

You got any actual evidence that's been happening? --Bob

No, Bob, neither do you. But someone thinks they have. That's why it has become an issue.

Regulations are good, right? Only non felonious, non fictitious, living citizens should be able to vote. Let's make sure we enforce the regulations and make sure everyone who is qualified to vote can vote, and make sure those who aren't can't. Any problem with that?

I would add that I would prefer that only motivated qualifed voters should vote. IMO anyone that has to be persuaded to exercise their right to vote is probably illinformed or misinformed about the issues.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: That's one way to look at it.
It will also be easier to register non existant people and have them vote for Obama.

You got any actual evidence that's been happening? --Bob

No, Bob, neither do you. But someone thinks they have. That's why it has become an issue.

No, it's become an issue because the Ohio Republican Party hopes that additional regulations will deter or prevent legitimate voters from going to the trouble of voting. The Ohio Secretary of State (an elected official whose job it is to make these calls) has determined that the processes she already has in place are sufficient to enforce the regulations. The Ohio Republican Party didn't like her decision so it went to court to get it changed. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:You got any actual evidence that's been happening? --Bob

No, Bob, neither do you. But someone thinks they have. That's why it has become an issue.

No, it's become an issue because the Ohio Republican Party hopes that additional regulations will deter or prevent legitimate voters from going to the trouble of voting. The Ohio Secretary of State (an elected official whose job it is to make these calls) has determined that the processes she already has in place are sufficient to enforce the regulations. The Ohio Republican Party didn't like her decision so it went to court to get it changed. --Bob

Is she sure?

I think I'm registered to vote there at least three times!

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:You got any actual evidence that's been happening? --Bob

No, Bob, neither do you. But someone thinks they have. That's why it has become an issue.

No, it's become an issue because the Ohio Republican Party hopes that additional regulations will deter or prevent legitimate voters from going to the trouble of voting.

Now what evidence do you have for that? That sounds like an opinion to me.
I have just as much right to speculate that Jennifer Brunner is registering bogus voters to help the Democrats in the upcoming election. I have no evidence for that statement, but you state the charges against the repubs as if they are facts. Gimmee a break from the kool aid drinkers.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: No, Bob, neither do you. But someone thinks they have. That's why it has become an issue.

No, it's become an issue because the Ohio Republican Party hopes that additional regulations will deter or prevent legitimate voters from going to the trouble of voting.

Now what evidence do you have for that? That sounds like an opinion to me.
I have just as much right to speculate that Jennifer Brunner is registering bogus voters to help the Democrats in the upcoming election. I have no evidence for that statement, but you state the charges against the repubs as if they are facts. Gimmee a break from the kool aid drinkers.

You stated that Ohio's procedures became an issue because "someone thinks" they have evidence of voter fraud. I doubt you have evidence of what was going on in the mind of the people who decided the Ohio Republican Party should bring this lawsuit. I'm certainly just as entitled to draw my inference as you are to draw yours. --Bob

Had the Ohio Republican Party had its way, voter rolls would have been checked against driver license information.

Had an Ohio voter moved since getting their driver license, they likely would not be able to vote.

nitrah55 wrote:Had the Ohio Republican Party had its way, voter rolls would have been checked against driver license information.

Had an Ohio voter moved since getting their driver license, they likely would not be able to vote.

My gosh, you're right. How unfair that anyone makes a prospective voter have some kind of proof that they are who they say they are. Those evil republicans!

I'll bet that you are very pleased with that decision.

It will make it that much easier for the Obama camp to continue to cheat its way in this election.

This is not surprising to me as it wouldn't be the first time that Obama used the "by any means necessary"
method to try to win an election. The first time he did this, he was successful when he prevented Alice
Palmer from running against him for a seat in the Illinois Senate. I, for one, sure hope that the American
people take a good, hard look at these shenanigans.

Sir_Galahad wrote:I'll bet that you are very pleased with that decision.

It will make it that much easier for the Obama camp to continue to cheat its way in this election.

You have no evidence, none at all, that Obama is in any way cheating. Persuading more voters to vote for you is not cheating. It's winning fair and square. And that's just what's happening here.

To be clear, here's what the lawsuit was about. As I recall, you recently moved to Iowa. Let's suppose that when you applied for your driver's license, some data entry clerk somewhere keyed in a typo. There would be a discrepancy, then, between your driver's license records and your voter registration, and since this is your first time voting in Iowa, there won't be any opportunity to clear it up before Election Day.

The Ohio Secretary of State has lists of all such discrepancies in Ohio. The Republican Party wanted copies of the discrepancy lists so that they could use them as the basis for voter challenges. If that happened in Iowa, and if the Republican poll-watchers didn't like your demographics, they would, at a minimum, create extra time and trouble for you to vote by challenging your bona fides. At a maximum, you would find yourself casting a provisional ballot, which would only be counted if you took the time and trouble to clear up the data entry discrepancy that wasn't your fault to begin with.

The Ohio Secretary of State took the eminently reasonable position that driver's license databases weren't sufficiently "clean" to be used as a basis for voter challenges, and refused to release the discrepancy lists for that purpose. So you're damn right I'm pleased with that decision. And if you find yourself the victim of a government clerk's data entry error, you will be too. --Bob

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Now what evidence do you have for that? That sounds like an opinion to me.
I have just as much right to speculate that Jennifer Brunner is registering bogus voters to help the Democrats in the upcoming election. I have no evidence for that statement, but you state the charges against the repubs as if they are facts. Gimmee a break from the kool aid drinkers.

By the way, when a similar lawsuit was filed in Montana, a federal judge found that the GOP official involved filed false affidavits with the express intent to disenfranchise voters. --Bob