the latest fraud file

[corplinx]

compiled from mostly AP by FNC

Nice wrapup, and it includes many previously discussed blurbs. I find the Ohio action interesting. These judges have circumvented the written law the day before the election. They do have a point which is that these people will clutter the process. However, once a vote has been cast its much harder to challenge.

Are preppie pencilneck white guys in khakis who ask for ID really that intimidating to black voters? For that matter is the elderly blue haired woman poll worker who asks for their voter registration card intimidating?

 

[toddjh]

Are preppie pencilneck white guys in khakis who ask for ID really that intimidating to black voters? For that matter is the elderly blue haired woman poll worker who asks for their voter registration card intimidating?

The difference is that the poll worker's questions are completely routine and non-partisan. They aren't sent selectively to certain precincts to "challenge" the legitimacy of certain voters.

Also, under Ohio law, the decisions of "challengers" are final and without appeal, even if you provide documentation of your qualifications. For example, if a challenger says he does not believe you are over 18, you are not allowed to vote, even if you present identification that shows your age. Intimidation aside, this creates a grave risk for the violation of the 26th Amendment. Because it would be too late to undo the damage once the person's right to vote has been denied, it makes sense that striking down the law is the only way to minimize potential injustice.

It could also be a Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment issue. What right do these "challengers" have to deny your right to vote, even if you are properly registered? What due process are they following when they deprive you of your liberty? Questions from poll workers are (as far as I know) directed at every voter, but "challengers" are allowed to apply them arbitrarily, and are partisan to boot -- where is the equal protection under the law?

Jeremy

 

[hgc]

Re: Re: the latest fraud file

The difference is that the poll worker's questions are completely routine and non-partisan. They aren't sent selectively to certain precincts to "challenge" the legitimacy of certain voters.

Also, under Ohio law, the decisions of "challengers" are final and without appeal, even if you provide documentation of your qualifications. For example, if a challenger says he does not believe you are over 18, you are not allowed to vote, even if you present identification that shows your age. Intimidation aside, this creates a grave risk for the violation of the 26th Amendment. Because it would be too late to undo the damage once the person's right to vote has been denied, it makes sense that striking down the law is the only way to minimize potential injustice.

It could also be a Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment issue. What right do these "challengers" have to deny your right to vote, even if you are properly registered? What due process are they following when they deprive you of your liberty? Questions from poll workers are (as far as I know) directed at every voter, but "challengers" are allowed to apply them arbitrarily, and are partisan to boot -- where is the equal protection under the law?

Jeremy

Thanks for this. I always wondered how this worked. My dad, being the good Republican foot soldier that he was, used to go challenge voters in black precincts in Charlotte. I never got a reasonable explanation from him as to what authority he had to do so. And of course no less a personage than William Rehnquist used to do it in Arizona back in the 60's.

But I never imagined that a challenger's say-so was all that was required to disqualify a voter, in Ohio. If that's the case, then this law is completely unworkable. No wonder judges are tossing it out right and left.

 

[toddjh]

Re: Re: Re: the latest fraud file

Thanks for this. I always wondered how this worked. My dad, being the good Republican foot soldier that he was, used to go challenge voters in black precincts in Charlotte. I never got a reasonable explanation from him as to what authority he had to do so. And of course no less a personage than William Rehnquist used to do it in Arizona back in the 60's.

But I never imagined that a challenger's say-so was all that was required to disqualify a voter, in Ohio. If that's the case, then this law is completely unworkable. No wonder judges are tossing it out right and left.

Well, that's the scant reading I got off a news site, so take it for what it's worth. It said that the head poll worker could eject a challenger if he was being unreasonable, but could not reverse any judgement he'd already made.

Jeremy

 

[corplinx]

Re: Re: the latest fraud file

Also, under Ohio law, the decisions of "challengers" are final and without appeal, even if you provide documentation of your qualifications.

That doesn't sound right, is Ohio law really that f*cked up?

 

[toddjh]

Re: Re: Re: the latest fraud file

That doesn't sound right, is Ohio law really that f*cked up?

No, I was mistaken (or else the page I originally found was flawed). Apparently, it's not the challenger who asks the questions, it's the head poll worker. The challenger only determines who will be questioned. They must have "good cause" to believe that a voter in ineligible (too young, not a resident of the county, etc.)

Still troubling, but not as bad, I suppose. At least it would require two people working together.

Edited to add: it looks like the decision of the poll worker is indeed final and without appeal, however.

Jeremy

 

[toddjh]

Re: Re: Re: Re: the latest fraud file

Duplicate post, gah!

 

[Meadmaker]

According to a piece I heard on the radio, the real situation was worse than even what it sounds. However, I tuned in in the middle, and so I may not have heard the whole thing. In other words, what you are about to read might be complete hogwash, but if you want accuracy, internet forums probably aren't where you want to be. But, here goes...

Under Ohio law, if challenged prior to the election, a voter had to present proof that he was eligible to vote, or his name would be stripped from the poll lists. So, the GOP was sending out mail, and if it came back undelivered, they would challenge the voter. Or, they were finding other reasons why that person might not be registered, in the minds of GOP challengers. If the voter failed to show up at a hearing, on a workday of course, he would be stripped of registration.

Shameful. The radio piece covered one of those hearings at which the GOP challengers presented "evidence" that someone wasn't registered, but after a while, as voter after voter appeared, and the challenger gave some flimsy reason why he had suspected this person might be a fraud, the election judges realized this was partisan ploy, and threw out all the challenges en masse.

(And if I got this wrong, thanks in advance for correcting me.)

Edited to add link to transcript.

Transcript of radio program

 

[corplinx]

I see there is some "fog of election" going on. Too bad they waited til now to file this suit so we couldn't get a better analysis of it.

We might not know all the nuances of this suit until _after_ the election. Of course, I am sure the people who sued wanted it to slip in right before the election so there wouldn't be time to overturn the first decision.

Whether or not those people's motives were pure, the validity of the case and of the law is still unclear to me.