SCOTUS Overrules Voter Suppression

[SirNitram]

Link

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is siding with Ohio's top elections official in a dispute with the state Republican Party over voter registrations.

The justices on Friday overruled a federal appeals court that had ordered Ohio's top elections official to do more to help counties verify voter eligibility.

Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, a Democrat, faced a deadline of Friday to set up a system to provide local officials with names of newly registered voters whose driver's license numbers or Social Security numbers on voter registration forms don't match records in other government databases.

Ohio Republicans contended the information for counties would help prevent fraud. Brunner said the GOP is trying to disenfranchise voters.

Suck it, GOP! Now, Obama just has to hit them, or some other prominent figure bring up the US Attorney scandal..

[Kanastrous]

It's remarkable how much effort the Republicans seem to be throwing at preventing voter fraud, when - so far as I can find - there hasn't been much of a voter-fraud problem reported, anywhere that they're trying to get people stricken.

[TimothyC]

Yes because allowing a person who is going to be thrown under the bus after she throws the state of Ohio for Obama by not letting people observe early voting (while ACORN submits fraudulent applications) win in a court case that lets her accept all of the said applications is such a good idea!

It's remarkable how much effort the Republicans seem to be throwing at preventing voter fraud, when - so far as I can find - there hasn't been much of a voter-fraud problem reported, anywhere that they're trying to get people stricken.

Hm. Maybe because people have not been allowed to observe the applications!

And Let us look at a longer article:

Ohio Democrats Win at Top U.S. Court in Voting Fight (Update4)

By Greg Stohr

Oct. 17 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court, siding with Democrats, freed Ohio officials from a lower court order that might have limited participation by new voters in next month's presidential election.

Today's ruling means Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner doesn't have to provide county election boards with lists of new registrants whose information doesn't match up with government databases. A federal trial judge had ordered Brunner, a Democrat, to supply the lists by today.

The Supreme Court said Republicans who sued Brunner ``are not sufficiently likely to prevail'' because the provision of federal law they invoked doesn't authorize private suits. The two-page unsigned order was issued on behalf of the full court, without any published dissent.

Brunner said the judge's order could have affected as many as 200,000 Ohioans, potentially forcing them to cast provisional ballots instead of regular ballots. Democrats likely would have been disproportionately affected by the judge's order because of the party's efforts to register new voters this year.

Ohio is a crucial state for Republican presidential candidate John McCain in his race against Democrat Barack Obama. Without Ohio's 20 electoral votes, McCain would have to carry every other state that voted for George W. Bush in 2004, plus one that voted Democratic. Recent polls indicate Obama has pulled even or ahead in Ohio, a state Bush won by less than 118,000 votes four years ago.

Weeding Out Fraud

The Ohio Republican Party accused Brunner of ignoring her duty under a federal law to help weed out fraudulent registrations. The dispute was one of several fights that have made Ohio a center of legal controversy leading up to the Nov. 4 election.

McCain campaign manager Rick Davis in a statement said Brunner is seeking to ``minimize the level of fairness and transparency in this election.''

Brunner ``has fought at every opportunity the appeals of the people of the state and the county boards of election to provide an oversight of this election so it's done in a free, fair and open matter,'' said John McClelland, spokesman for the Ohio Republican Party.

Democrats hailed the ruling. The decision ``allows Ohio to move about the business of ensuring a free, fair, open and honest election without the threat of widespread voter suppression by the GOP,'' Ohio Democratic Party Chairman Chris Redfern said in a statement.

`Myriad Discrepancies'

Brunner was elected secretary of state in 2006. She succeeded Republican Ken Blackwell, who was the target of Democratic criticism leading up to the 2004 election.

Brunner said in court papers that preliminary analyses showed ``myriad discrepancies'' in voter information. ``Many of those discrepancies bear no relationship whatsoever to a voter's eligibility to vote a regular, as opposed to a provisional, ballot,'' she said.

Brunner said the mismatches ``may well be used at the county level unnecessarily to challenge fully qualified voters and severely disrupt the voting process.''

The Ohio Republican Party argued that the 2002 Help America Vote Act, known as HAVA, requires Brunner to share the mismatches with county boards so they can investigate potential fraud before counting votes.

Republicans faulted Brunner for her ``steadfast refusal to provide the HAVA `mismatch' data to the county boards of elections in a meaningful way.''

Court Consensus

The Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had upheld U.S. District Judge George C. Smith's order on a 9-6 vote.

In overturning the order, the Supreme Court said it wasn't addressing the underlying question about Brunner's duties under HAVA, instead concluding that Congress probably hadn't authorized private lawsuits under the provision at issue. In reaching that conclusion, the court found a way to resolve the case without splitting along ideological lines.

``It's very good for the election process that it was unanimous,'' said Edward Foley, director of the election law program at Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law in Columbus. ``It's more important that it was unanimous than whichever way it went.''

Robert Bauer, general counsel to Obama's presidential campaign, said the ruling might doom a similar lawsuit being pressed in Wisconsin by its Republican attorney general. ``It could be close to game, set, match,'' Bauer said.

Kevin St. John, a spokesman for Wisconsin Attorney General J.B Van Hollen, said there is a ``huge difference'' between the Ohio and Wisconsin cases. He said Van Hollen was suing in ``his official capacity to enforce state election law in state court.''

New Voters

More than 660,000 new voters registered in Ohio this year, many of them motivated by the chance to participate in the state's contested March 4 Democratic primary between Obama and New York Senator Hillary Clinton. While the state doesn't require party registration, Obama's aides say their party has a significant edge among new voters.

In Ohio and other states, would-be voters whose eligibility is in doubt can cast provisional ballots, which will count only if eventually validated by election officials.

The case is Brunner v. Ohio Republican Party, 07A332.

And let us not forget What Senator Obama said last year:

Obama to ACORN

[ArcturusMengsk]

And let us not forget What Senator Obama said last year:

Obama to ACORN

And let us not forget What Senator McCain Said In 2006 To ACORN:

McCain to ACORN

Sure, they're a nutty group, but even for them there are a few bad seeds here and there.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Too bad ACORN is required to submit all filled applications, not vet them according to their specifications. That would be voter fraud, but why think when we uncritically accept Fixed Noise propaganda. Voting malpractice investigations have turned up 26 guilty individuals since 2004. Its a statistically nonexistent problem. The problem of voter purging like was documented in 2000 with lol, sorry you got a sorta-similar name to a convict, probably a frequently black name lol, no vote for you, occurred by the thousands.

[TimothyC]

Too bad ACORN is required to submit all filled applications, not vet them according to their specifications. That would be voter fraud, but why think when we uncritically accept Fixed Noise propaganda.

Good Point, and I concede it. What I have a problem with is that the Secretary Brunner isn't allowing the county governments to check out when stuff doesn't add up right, besides, the right to vote isn't being stoped, just that until the status of the voter is clear, the ballot is marked provisional.

And let us not forget What Senator McCain Said In 2006 To ACORN:

McCain to ACORN

Sure, they're a nutty group, but even for them there are a few bad seeds here and there.

Thank you for the video, but I fail to see how they are equal. Oh No response is guaranteed as I have limited net time, and arguing with you isn't a high priority for me.

[SirNitram]

Good Point, and I concede it. What I have a problem with is that the Secretary Brunner isn't allowing the county governments to check out when stuff doesn't add up right, besides, the right to vote isn't being stoped, just that until the status of the voter is clear, the ballot is marked provisional.

Given the SCOTUS disagrees with this, explain how this is legally supported.

[CmdrWilkens]

Good Point, and I concede it. What I have a problem with is that the Secretary Brunner isn't allowing the county governments to check out when stuff doesn't add up right, besides, the right to vote isn't being stoped, just that until the status of the voter is clear, the ballot is marked provisional.

Given the SCOTUS disagrees with this, explain how this is legally supported.

Actually the SCOTUs didn't state whether they agreed with it or not. They overturned the lower ruling on the basis that the state Republican party had no standing to bring the suit. In other words there was no qualitative judgement on the actions rather a statement that no action should have been taken on this case to begin with.

[SirNitram]

Good Point, and I concede it. What I have a problem with is that the Secretary Brunner isn't allowing the county governments to check out when stuff doesn't add up right, besides, the right to vote isn't being stoped, just that until the status of the voter is clear, the ballot is marked provisional.

Given the SCOTUS disagrees with this, explain how this is legally supported.

Actually the SCOTUs didn't state whether they agreed with it or not. They overturned the lower ruling on the basis that the state Republican party had no standing to bring the suit. In other words there was no qualitative judgement on the actions rather a statement that no action should have been taken on this case to begin with.

My mistake.

But really, the mere fact this is part of the ACORN charade is pretty good indication of it being a farce. Hell, it's gotten one of the US Attorneys that got fired to step up and say how stupid this is.

[Sikon]

The justices on Friday overruled a federal appeals court that had ordered Ohio's top elections official to do more to help counties verify voter eligibility.

Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, a Democrat, [would have] faced a deadline of Friday to set up a system to provide local officials with names of newly registered voters whose driver's license numbers or Social Security numbers on voter registration forms don't match records in other government databases.

Ohio Republicans contended the information for counties would help prevent fraud. Brunner said the GOP is trying to disenfranchise voters.

There's controversy over whether names and social security numbers should be verified to match up with government records, whether there needs to be a mechanism to prevent someone registering and voting multiple times under different SSNs, etc.

It's remarkable how much effort the Republicans seem to be throwing at preventing voter fraud, when - so far as I can find - there hasn't been much of a voter-fraud problem reported, anywhere that they're trying to get people stricken.

That's a classic example of what you hear depends on your news sources, e.g. thousands of cases of voter registration fraud have been reported in some places, as well as some arrests, some people pleading guilty, etc.

The Virginia State Board of Elections admonished Project Vote and ACORN for turning in a significant number of faulty voter registrations. An audit revealed that 83% of sampled registrations that were rejected for carrying false or questionable information were submitted by Project Vote. [...]

Many of these registrations carried social security numbers that exist for other people, listed non-existent or commercial addresses, or were for convicted felons in violation of state and federal election law. [...]

Three ACORN employees pleaded guilty, and four more were charged, in the worst case of voter registration fraud in Washington state history. More than 2,000 fraudulent voter registration cards were submitted by the group during a voter registration drive. [...]

Of 5,379 voter registration cards ACORN submitted in St. Louis, only 2,013 of those appeared to be valid. At least 1,000 are believed to be attempts to register voters illegally. [...]

From here.



Especially with the potential of such combined with absentee mail-in ballots, false social security numbers and other concerns have been getting in the news a lot recently in a umber of states, such as with the recent law enforcement raid on ACORN in Las Vegas saying hundreds of registrations appeared fraudulent.

[SirNitram]

There's always alot of fraudulent registrations. This is because there are quite a few people who'll volunteer, and instead of working, just write BS, and collect their money. The problem is the constant implication that this leads inevitably to large amounts(Or even noticable amounts) of fradulent votes. The DOJ obsessed over pursuing it so much even their own party members that were US Attorneys were purged for not pursuing enough cases.

[CmdrWilkens]

You are aware also that certian states, Nevada is one, require that groups such as ACORN turn in ALL registrations regardless?

Let me say that again. State law often REQUIRES groups to turn in registrations they beleive to be fraduluent. In other words the fact that they do so simply means they are actually complying with the law...amazing really.