Skip to comments.Obama Campaign Sues To Eliminate Ohio Military Early Voting Rights
Posted on 08/04/2012 11:19:59 AM PDT by Kfobbs
In the midst of foreign enemy pitched firefights, IEDs and rocket barrages, the Ohio military service men and women are now being targeted by an enemy at home as well. Obama presidential campaign officials, with the apparent go ahead from the commander-in-chief is suing to eliminate the legal voting rights of Ohio military soldiers. Millions in Ohio and across the nation may regard this as an unthinkable act of unbelievable disservice to soldiers who place themselves in harms way daily. Of course, they would be correct.
For a calculating politician who had just visited the Buckeye State, just scant days before, one would surmise that this callous act would not have occurred. Well it has occurred and it is clear from the Obama administrations undertaking to openly deceive and divide the voting public with deceptive attention diverting advertising ploys against Mitt Romney, their end game is to win this key battleground state.
What drives this desperate move to disarm Ohios military voters is possibly tied to the Wednesday Gallup Poll numbers that were released, showing Obamas approval poll numbers stalling at 46 percent in Ohio. If these underperforming approval ratings worsen as the campaign heads into the post Memorial Day election battlefield, Obama and his administration will be decommissioned by the voters of Ohio.
Enter the Obama campaigns clumsy effort to outflank the one area of the Ohio voter base that can unseat the president: the military vote. This is important, because in the 2008 presidential election, approximately 1.7 million votes or close to 30 percent of Ohios vote total were cast through absentee ballots. With the military vote making up a large chunk of the votes cast and most military votes are supposedly typically cast for the republican presidential candidate, you can do the math. Eliminate the military...
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
Not only is it aimed at the military, it’s attempting to change the rules 100 days before the election in a swing state; using the court system. Judge shopping anyone?
Florida, 2000. Al Gore says let’s adjust the rules after the election. Supreme court says no.
With this Supreme court, who knows?
Oh HELL no.
That steaming mess of a blog is full of viruses and trackers.
How about you just summarize the rest for us?
My comment - The internals must look really bad. They'll look even worse now.
These dolts seem to forget that military members have family members who vote too. In voiding the military votes they're going to tick off a whole bunch of family members too.
young married service member losses - up to 5 votes with spouse and all 4 parents added in, not to mention siblings.
young single service member losses - up to 2 votes with both parents added in, not to mention siblings.
That's up to at least 7 votes lost for every two service members because of this decision.
Somebody didn't think this through.
The POS Kenyan Marxist steaming pantload Mooslim c**k s***er must have finally realized the US Military is trained to kill Communists, not vote for them....
I'm in that category, as a parent.. but it fails to account for the grandparents.
I know my mom follows the kid's adventures more closely than I do.
Great point. Thanks for that.
So the tally, if all 8 grandparents are still alive, is up to at least 15 votes potentially lost for every two service members.
Yeah, this was a "Get Smart" move.
Just one of Hussein’s ploys to steal the election! If he succeeds, there won’t be any more elections, Hussein will make himself emperor for life!
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Obama has rigged the rules of engagement against the U.S. military in Afghanistan, and now at home.
Obama has rigged the rules of engagement against the U.S. military in Afghanistan, and now at home.
Just as a heads up, this story was debunked hours after it first came out.
They are suing to allow anyone to vote the 3 days before the election, not just members of the military. It makes no sense if you’re staffing a polling place already to add in the requirement of proving the voter is in the military.
The misrepresentation of this story (which has been posted here on FR a half dozen times already) is the kind of thing lefties do.
Not true. The story is legitimate and several military organizations are in court in Ohio to confront the lawsuit. see Fox News, August 4, 2012: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/04/obama-campaign-sues-ohio-over-early-voting-law-for-military/
You know every election we go through this and military servicemen are denied their right to vote. Why is it that Holder is so set against voter ID because he says it will denie minorities the right to v ote but he dosent’t care about the people who are actively defending our country?
I call BS.
For instance, Glen Beck's site The Blaze shows twelve trackers blocked.
Military men tend to vote conservative. The more he can keep from voting, the better. That is the reason for the suit.
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)
There is nothing this man can do, absolutely nothing, that won’t get a ‘pass’ from the MSM.
“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.
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.
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.”
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.