Interesting! For a guy that was "gung-ho" on not allowing this(and firing 2 Mont. Co. Commissioners for defying his orders), he has basically threw in the towel. There will be early voting hours the weekend before the election.

 

Of course, everyone is trying to say it's the democrats who wanted it, but I think just as many Repubs wanted it too, actually.

 

 

This guy is a piece of work.

 

Judge rips Husted's late change

Calls last-minute ballot ruling unfair

 

'A federal judge has sharply criticized Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted’s last-minute change of ballot rules before this month’s election, saying Husted acted in a "fundamentally unfair and constitutionally impermissible" '

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20121114/NEWS010801/311140135/

Yeah, he needs to be gone.  It would be great if criminal charges could be made against him for the type of tampering he has attempted but it has all been just inside the law.

 

We need National Election reform geared towards uniformity. 

 

Obama mentioned long lines to vote in his acceptance speech and how we need to change that.  My sister who lives in Franklin was saying that there were really long lines near OSU Campus polling places.  Gee, you think we could get enough machines in dense places where people want to vote?  Apparently not if they are of a certain demographic and that's just wrong.

 

 

Hopefully he has made such an ass of himself that his plan for splitting our electoral votes is DOA.

I just don't understand the controversy on provisional ballot voter vs. pollworker filling out information issue. Why shouldn't the voter be responsible for filling out his/her own information the envelope? Wouldn't a poll worker be more likely to write down something incorrect?

Because the voter has never seen that form before, while the pollworker is trained on how to fill it out.  It makes zero sense to have voters do paperwork on the spot at their voting location.  That's why our law requires the pollworkers to do it.  Husted broke that law and should be removed from office.

I understand the question of law, but if I had to vote provisionally, I would rather fill out the info myself and make sure it's right.

There is nothing in the law which prevents you from making sure it's right

Just as there is nothing in the directive that disenfranchised voters.

Just as there is nothing in the directive that disenfranchised voters.

 

Help me understand your position.  If a provisional ballot is rejected because the voter who filled it out failed to understand the training they never actually received before attempting to do the pollworker's job, that voter has somehow disenfranchised himself? 

 

This is the form, correct? My point is you don't need any training to fill this out correctly.

Simple truth is that not all voters possess the level of literacy to fill out a legal form properly.  They are still U.S. citizens with the right to vote, whether or not some people like it.  That is the real reason that the onus is rightly on the poll worker to make sure the form is filled out correctly.

In practice the poll worker helps the illiterate voter fill out the form. Just as someone can help them vote. I understand that it is reasonable to put the onus on the pollworker, i just don't see why it is "evil" the other way around.

Riddle me this...

 

Under B, does a State ID count?

 

Is C required if A or B is filled in? 

 

How does B relate to the third item under C?

 

The statement following "NOTE," does it apply to A thru C, or just C?

 

What is a form 10-T and where are they obtained?

 

What if you have multiple forms of ID?  Can you complete multiple steps, or check multiple boxes under C?

Riddle me this...

Can I vote for more than one judge?

Do I have to fill in the entire box for my vote to count?

 

Voting can be complex, admittedly. That is why anyone is allowed to bring help or ask for help.

Husted is corrupt to the core and needs to go. Can Ohio vote him out before his term is up?

In practice the poll worker helps the illiterate voter fill out the form. Just as someone can help them vote. I understand that it is reasonable to put the onus on the pollworker, i just don't see why it is "evil" the other way around.

 

But if the poll worker fails to do this, or fails to do it correctly, the voter gets penalized under Husted's eleventh-hour change in procedure for the poll worker's folly. Some poll workers may have been trained prior to the change in law, which would complicate things further, since the law here is relevant.

 

Regardless of the content of the change, any last-minute change affecting whose vote is counted has the appearance of dirty tricks. On that, we should all agree.

Per his office, he was attempting to comply with Judge Marbley's ruling from earlier in the week. The entire system was in flux because of the many lawsuits. A last minute order was inevitable. You can disagree with his point of view - which I personally do on some of the issues - but all of this should have been settled months if not years ago. Again, you can disagree with the way he wanted to run the election, but it would be disingenuous to label his actions "dirty tricks." The ad hominem attacks are useless to the debate.

Sorry John, but Husted's track record this election allows for some serious criticism and accusations of partisanship.  Many of these actions were so blatant that they drew a dark cloud of national attention over our state.  The most obvious of these, of course, was the attempt to block early voting during the three days leading up to the election knowing full well the intent of that decree was to frustrate the "souls to the polls" initiative which brings minority votes in for the democrats...... especially when you consider that he left the decision up to the county boards, each of which contain 2 republicans and 1 democrat.  This resulted in all of the urban counties blocking early voting and all of the rural counties allowing it.  That couldn't have been any more thinly veiled than if the directive he issued been titled "Jim Crow"

 

Don't buy into the "attempting to comply with Judge Marbley's ruling" BS either.  If that was the case, there would be a firm paper trail he could point to.  Fact is, Husted was under incredible pressure from those who hold his political future in their hands...... the state and national GOP parties.  They thought he could be their secret weapon.   

 

As for your questions, have you read the court opinion or the legislative history which led to passage of the law at issue?  I think those are the two best sources to find the answers you seek.

"but it would be disingenuous to label his actions "dirty tricks." The ad hominem attacks are useless to the debate."

 

^Labeling his actions "dirty tricks" is not an appeal to feelings or an attack on the subjects character when they are analyzed against intent and precedent.  When looked at in this light, the label is a statement of fact.

 

 

The county boards each have 2 democrats and 2 republicans. This was a perfect example of the Republicans screwing up - they voted against extending early voting in urban counties (which meant Husted came in and broke the tie to limit) and voted for extending hours in the heavily red counties. The democrats were consistent and voted for early voting across the board.

 

As far as the ruling goes - I have skimmed it and plan to really dive in soon. My current opinion is that Husted has been consistent in how he wanted to run the election and the attacks on him have been partisan and unfair. No one seems to be attacking Secretaries of State in straight blue or red states, and I know Ohio isn't way behind the curve on early voting and provisional ballots.