Obama Campaign Sues To Eliminate Ohio Military Early Voting Rights

Examiner ^ | August 4, 2012 | Kevin Fobbs

[maxwellsmart_agent]

Military men tend to vote conservative. The more he can keep from voting, the better. That is the reason for the suit.

[sten]

of course 0failure needs to stop this... early voting would mean some military votes would get in before the post office (unexpectedly) goes bust in october...

just in time to stop all military ballots

(just another october surprise... otherwise known as forgiven corruption laughed off by the press)

[Spok]

There is nothing this man can do, absolutely nothing, that won’t get a ‘pass’ from the MSM.

[risen_feenix]

“Not true.”

Oh yeah?

“WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request of this Court the following equitable relief:…

B. A preliminary and permanent order prohibiting the Defendants, their respective agents, servants, employees, attorneys, successors, and all persons acting in concert with each or any of them, 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;”

Link to complaint: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/husted-complaint.pdf

Again, the suit is to restore voting for EVERYBODY in the three days prior, and not restrict it to military personnel only. They are not trying to remove the voting for military personnel.

Once more, this kind of misrepresentation should be below conservatives who should take more seriously “bearing false witness”.

Most serious conservative blogs have already debunked the anti-military angle which is clearly untrue.

[jesseam]

Re: With this Supreme court, who knows?

I pray to God that there is not enough time for “judge” roberts to side with obama on this. I still wonder what the pay of was for him to throw the Constitution under the bus.

[Kfobbs]

Two very important points that you failed to mention. The first is crucial. If you had bothered to read the Plaintiff’s claim,which is the Obama Campaign and the Ohio Democrat Party, the claim for relief is to state that their is no material difference between active duty military service men and women and Ohio residents who can easily avail themselves of access to voting in accordance to current Ohio law.

I will bring your attention to paragraph 2 - 4:

” 2. Specifically, taken together, Amended Substitute House Bill Number 194 (“HB 194”), Amended Substitute House Bill Number 224 (“HB 224”) and Substitute
Senate Bill Number 295 (“SB 295”), all enacted by the 129th Ohio GeneralAssembly, impose different deadlines for in-person voting prior to Election Day (“early voting”) on similarly situated voters. Prior to the enactment of these laws,there was a single uniform deadline of the Monday before Election Day for in person early voting. After the enactment of these laws, voters using the Uniformed
and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voter Act (“UOCAVA”) may vote early in-person at a board of elections office up through the Monday before Election Day, while
non-UOCAVA voters can vote early in-person at a board of elections office (or designated alternate site) only up until 6 p.m. on the Friday before Election Day.

3. The differential treatment of UOCAVA and non-UOCAVA voters with respect to early voting appears to be the result of a confused legislative process initiated by the
Ohio General Assembly after citizens of the State commenced the process to subject HB 194 to a referendum. HB 194 was a 300-page bill passed by a Republican dominated legislature that limited voting rights in a number of respects, including by shortening the time period for early voting – an option more likely to be used by groups of voters that tend to support Democratic candidates. While the referendum
petitions on HB 194 were circulating, the Ohio General Assembly passed HB 224 with “technical corrections” to the early in person voting laws. Then, after Ohio citizens exercised their right to hold a referendum vote on HB 194 by qualifying for the general election ballot, the Ohio General Assembly passed SB 295 to repeal HB 194, but failed to also repeal the corresponding “technical corrections” made by HB 224 in the interim. Whether caused by legislative error or partisan motivation, the result of this legislative process is arbitrary and inequitable treatment of similarly situated Ohio voters with respect to in-person early voting.

4. The Ohio General Assembly has failed to articulate any justification for this differential treatment of UOCAVA and non-UOCAVA voters, and no justification can be discerned. Indeed, these different deadlines exist despite the fact that, for purposes of in-person early voting, both UOCAVA and non-UOCAVA voters are identically situated, i.e., they are qualified electors who are physically present in
their home county when they desire to vote in-person at their county board of elections office prior to Election Day.”

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/husted-complaint.pdf

The legal point of this argument is to ignore the statutory authority that the Ohio Secretary of State and the Ohio legislature has to make a decision to end disproportional early voting that was not uniform in each county of Ohio and economically unreasonable to continue.

The provision of the law that still provides military service men and women to take advantage of early voting due to their open and obvious wartime circumstances is apparent. so your claim that the lawsuit’s goal is to restore early which is onsite to all voters is a political ploy and certainly not a valid legal argument, and if so, a judge will decide that.

The point that you allude to “conservative blogs which have “debunked this claim” are without merit, and what is clear, is that liberal blogs and the Obama campaign are pushing back, due to their obvious political mistake to make Ohio military servicemen and women the target.

In other words, you are wrong, and your statements are without merit.