http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/news.html
Ohio Democratic Party Sues Secretary of State Over Provisional Ballots
11/16/04 (10:23 a.m. ET) - The party seeks to join pending Schering suit, which argues that lack of clear, uniform standards for evaluating the eligibility of provisional ballots violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
And see DNC's complaint: http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/docs/...orcomplaint.pdf
Full Version: DNC sues Ohio Secretary of State over
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > Civil Rights and Civil Liberties > Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Archive
aaaaaaaaa.......
The fecal matter has begun hitting the oscillating rotary blade device!!!!!!!
The fecal matter has begun hitting the oscillating rotary blade device!!!!!!!
QUOTE(PaineInTheArse @ Nov 16 2004, 07:37 PM)
aaaaaaaaa.......
The fecal matter has begun hitting the oscillating rotary blade device!!!!!!!
The fecal matter has begun hitting the oscillating rotary blade device!!!!!!!
I love it how clever
not good enough
where's the recount request?
where's the recount request?
Great. I suspect that on top of those who voted using provisional ballots, there were many more who were dissuaded, demoralized and turned away. This whole situation stinks.
LMAO Paine
I understand the recount request won't come until after the results are certified which cannot be done until all the provisionals are counted. They don't plan to release the results of the provisional ballot counting until Nov 22nd. So, the certification won't occur until sometime after the 22nd and before December 1-3rd (sorry I cannot remember which day is the certification deadline).
I understand the recount request won't come until after the results are certified which cannot be done until all the provisionals are counted. They don't plan to release the results of the provisional ballot counting until Nov 22nd. So, the certification won't occur until sometime after the 22nd and before December 1-3rd (sorry I cannot remember which day is the certification deadline).
QUOTE
The fecal matter has begun hitting the oscillating rotary blade device!!!!!!!
This happens to me all the time when I mow the lawn.
QUOTE(BrokeInOhio @ Nov 16 2004, 06:46 PM)
LMAO Paine
I understand the recount request won't come until after the results are certified which cannot be done until all the provisionals are counted. They don't plan to release the results of the provisional ballot counting until Nov 22nd. So, the certification won't occur until sometime after the 22nd and before December 1-3rd (sorry I cannot remember which day is the certification deadline).
I understand the recount request won't come until after the results are certified which cannot be done until all the provisionals are counted. They don't plan to release the results of the provisional ballot counting until Nov 22nd. So, the certification won't occur until sometime after the 22nd and before December 1-3rd (sorry I cannot remember which day is the certification deadline).
From what I understand a recount cannot happen UNTIL AFTER the election is certified by Blackwell. That means it won't even start until the second week of December.
QUOTE(PaineInTheArse @ Nov 16 2004, 06:37 PM)
aaaaaaaaa.......
The fecal matter has begun hitting the oscillating rotary blade device!!!!!!!
The fecal matter has begun hitting the oscillating rotary blade device!!!!!!!
Lovin' every minute of it... ROFLMAO
QUOTE(BrokeInOhio @ Nov 16 2004, 06:35 PM)
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/news.html
Ohio Democratic Party Sues Secretary of State Over Provisional Ballots
11/16/04 (10:23 a.m. ET) - The party seeks to join pending Schering suit, which argues that lack of clear, uniform standards for evaluating the eligibility of provisional ballots violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
And see DNC's complaint: http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/docs/...orcomplaint.pdf
Ohio Democratic Party Sues Secretary of State Over Provisional Ballots
11/16/04 (10:23 a.m. ET) - The party seeks to join pending Schering suit, which argues that lack of clear, uniform standards for evaluating the eligibility of provisional ballots violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
And see DNC's complaint: http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/docs/...orcomplaint.pdf
Having read their complaint, I honestly would be surprised if a judge acted on this. Now, first, I admit that I am not certain whether a judge must rule on the merits of the complaint alone or if he can go above that and rule based solely on constitutionality. I would guess that it would be the former.
That beind said, here is the gist of their complaint:
That the directive handed down by Blackwell is not clear.
“Before a provisional ballot may be counted in the official canvass,
the board of elections must confirm that the voter:
1. was registered to vote somewhere in Ohio during the thirty days
before the election,
2. did not vote from a former address of absentee ballot,
3. voted in the correct precinct,
4. completed and signed all required affirmation statements, and
5. in the case of a voter who did not provide HAVA required
identification information when registering, has provided an
acceptable proof of the applicant’s identity by the close of polls on
election day at either the polling location of the board of elections.
The board of elections shall begin verifying the above information
immediately following the election and must complete the process
by the conclusion of the official canvass. If this information is
verified, the provisional ballot is to be included in the official
canvass. If any of this information cannot be verified, the ballot
cannot be counted."
Now, what any reasonable person can do is go through this point-by-point.
A provisional ballot will only be counted if:
1. was registered to vote somewhere in Ohio during the thirty days
before the election,
OK, this makes sense. The voter MUST have been registered to vote in Ohio for at least 30 days prior to the election.
2. did not vote from a former address of absentee ballot,
The voter did not already vote via an absentee ballot.
3. voted in the correct precinct,
The voter cast the provisional ballot in their proper precinct.
4. completed and signed all required affirmation statements, and
The voter completed the affadavit that accompanies all provisional ballots. This is where they give their name, address and date of birth and sign it.
5. in the case of a voter who did not provide HAVA required
identification information when registering, has provided an
acceptable proof of the applicant’s identity by the close of polls on
election day at either the polling location of the board of elections.
The board of elections shall begin verifying the above information
immediately following the election and must complete the process
by the conclusion of the official canvass. If this information is
verified, the provisional ballot is to be included in the official
canvass. If any of this information cannot be verified, the ballot
cannot be counted."
This ONLY applies if the voter did not provide identification as required under HAVA (Federal law). These are: "current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter". (text quoted from HAVA)
If they did not have any of these with them when they cast the provisional ballot, the voter must either have supplied this proof or their ballot will not be counted.
Does anyone find that not to be quite clear?
Of course, then again, I will not be really that surprised if a judge DOES actually make some sort of meaningful ruling on this. They DO love the spotlight.
The case may not hinge on the actual wording of the directive or its vagueness... it may hinge on the manner in which it has been applied if it is not applied uniformly in every precinct across the state. If any part is not applied uniformly (and part 4 leaves a big question as to uniformity of procedures here), it would be grounds for this suit.
Also, wouldn't a key factor be that the poll workers told the voters they didn't need to fill out all the information? Just guessing here.
Bush digs spider hole in White House back yard
film at 11
film at 11
QUOTE(NiteOwl @ Nov 16 2004, 07:43 PM)
The case may not hinge on the actual wording of the directive or its vagueness... it may hinge on the manner in which it has been applied if it is not applied uniformly in every precinct across the state. If any part is not applied uniformly (and part 4 leaves a big question as to uniformity of procedures here), it would be grounds for this suit.
Ah! Good distinction.
The wording of the complaint largely refers to the directive being vague. I don't think it is. But, one paragraphs does mention a ballot that might be counted in one county might not be counted in another.
So, the question is whether a judge will see that distinction as well. I mean, not that the judge will be stupid, but he may look at the directive and determine that it is quite clear and leave it at that.
Of course, I have to be honest, too and say that I haven't seen anything that indicates that any counties are determining validity differently.
I don't see anything regarding a hearing on this, so it would appear that right now a judge is only being asked to rule, summarily, based on the complaint. And, I am sure there will be an answer filed by the SOS office as well.
QUOTE(BrokeInOhio @ Nov 16 2004, 07:56 PM)
Also, wouldn't a key factor be that the poll workers told the voters they didn't need to fill out all the information? Just guessing here.
No. The court is only being asked to rule on whether the directive issued by Blackwell violates the Equal Protection Clause and, if it does, to issue a new directive of its own.
What actions may, or may not, have ensued prior to, or during the election would not even be considered.
You're going down Blackwell!!!!!
Nevermind--just saw the provisional results. 
QUOTE(naughtydonkey @ Nov 17 2004, 12:19 PM)
Nevermind--just saw the provisional results.
Where are they posted?
Does this lawsuit address the change of policy on Election Day to a new post-election policy that Requires birth dates be included on the Provisional ballots in order for them to be valid, whereas on Election Day poll woorkers were instructed that birth dates were not required and they advised voters based on this differing advice?
This, if true, is clearly an inconsistent application of election rules by Blackwell.
This, if true, is clearly an inconsistent application of election rules by Blackwell.
QUOTE(naughtydonkey @ Nov 17 2004, 12:19 PM)
Nevermind--just saw the provisional results.
are they that bad?
No, Naughtydonkey wants us all to give up.
No, naughty is a freeper, and the provisional ballot counts are pathetic.
QUOTE(brossignol @ Nov 16 2004, 05:26 PM)
Having read their complaint, I honestly would be surprised if a judge acted on this. Now, first, I admit that I am not certain whether a judge must rule on the merits of the complaint alone or if he can go above that and rule based solely on constitutionality. I would guess that it would be the former.
That beind said, here is the gist of their complaint:
That the directive handed down by Blackwell is not clear.
Before a provisional ballot may be counted in the official canvass,
the board of elections must confirm that the voter:
1. was registered to vote somewhere in Ohio during the thirty days
before the election,
2. did not vote from a former address of absentee ballot,
3. voted in the correct precinct,
4. completed and signed all required affirmation statements, and
5. in the case of a voter who did not provide HAVA required
identification information when registering, has provided an
acceptable proof of the applicant?s identity by the close of polls on
election day at either the polling location of the board of elections.
The board of elections shall begin verifying the above information
immediately following the election and must complete the process
by the conclusion of the official canvass. If this information is
verified, the provisional ballot is to be included in the official
canvass. If any of this information cannot be verified, the ballot
cannot be counted."
Now, what any reasonable person can do is go through this point-by-point.
A provisional ballot will only be counted if ....
Does anyone find that not to be quite clear?
Of course, then again, I will not be really that surprised if a judge DOES actually make some sort of meaningful ruling on this. They DO love the spotlight.
That beind said, here is the gist of their complaint:
That the directive handed down by Blackwell is not clear.
Before a provisional ballot may be counted in the official canvass,
the board of elections must confirm that the voter:
1. was registered to vote somewhere in Ohio during the thirty days
before the election,
2. did not vote from a former address of absentee ballot,
3. voted in the correct precinct,
4. completed and signed all required affirmation statements, and
5. in the case of a voter who did not provide HAVA required
identification information when registering, has provided an
acceptable proof of the applicant?s identity by the close of polls on
election day at either the polling location of the board of elections.
The board of elections shall begin verifying the above information
immediately following the election and must complete the process
by the conclusion of the official canvass. If this information is
verified, the provisional ballot is to be included in the official
canvass. If any of this information cannot be verified, the ballot
cannot be counted."
Now, what any reasonable person can do is go through this point-by-point.
A provisional ballot will only be counted if ....
Does anyone find that not to be quite clear?
Of course, then again, I will not be really that surprised if a judge DOES actually make some sort of meaningful ruling on this. They DO love the spotlight.
brossignol -- what Blackwell's directive is missing and what I think the complaint is getting at is a complete lack of standardized uniform procedures for making the various determinations laid out in the directive. Blackwell's directive sets forth the criteria for counting provisional ballots, but no procedures for actually carrying out the count. He gives you the what [to count] but not the how.
The directive says that the provisional ballot will not be counted unless:
1) The voter was registered to vote somewhere in Ohio during the thirty days before the election. It does not set forth any methodology any procedure for determining whether the voter was registered "somewhere" in Ohio. There's nothing here to insure that every precinct is following the same methodology for making this determination. Are we checking the voter rolls in every county of Ohio to see if this person was registered somewhere? Are we only checking the rolls within 20 miles of his last known address? There's no standard to insure that every precinct is doing the same thing to verify whether or not this person was registered somewhere.
2) Did not vote from a former address of absentee ballot. What's the methodology for checking this out? Are we cross checking this name against every absentee ballot for the entire state? What procedure are we following to make this determination?
3) Voted in the correct precinct. What methodology do we follow to check this?
4) Completed and signed all required affirmation statements. Methodology?
5) In the case of a voter who did not provide HAVA required identification information when registering, has provided an acceptable proof of the applicant?s identity by the close of polls on election day at either the polling location or the board of elections. What is "acceptable" proof? What about polls that closed at 3am because of the long lines? Some of the language in this one is open to interpretation and again it sets forth no procedure or methodology.
From my reading of the complaint that's what they're getting at -- lack of uniform standard procedures and methodology for determining whether the criteria exists. I can see the equal protection argument here because the directive itself opens the door to varying standards from county to county or precinct to precinct by failing to specify procedures and methods. His directive lays out the end result, but it leaves it up to you to decide how to get there. That might be okay in an office environment where you're assigning a task to a subordinate. It's unacceptable in insuring the accuracy of our electoral process -- that simply can't be left to the whim of Tom, Dick or Harry in Franklin County -- we need to know that everyone throughout the state is following the same procedure to insure accuracy and fairness in the process.
QUOTE(Robin @ Nov 17 2004, 11:17 AM)
brossignol -- what Blackwell's directive is missing and what I think the complaint is getting at is a complete lack of standardized uniform procedures for making the various determinations laid out in the directive. Blackwell's directive sets forth the criteria for counting provisional ballots, but no procedures for actually carrying out the count. He gives you the what [to count] but not the how.
The directive says that the provisional ballot will not be counted unless:
1) The voter was registered to vote somewhere in Ohio during the thirty days before the election. It does not set forth any methodology any procedure for determining whether the voter was registered "somewhere" in Ohio. There's nothing here to insure that every precinct is following the same methodology for making this determination. Are we checking the voter rolls in every county of Ohio to see if this person was registered somewhere? Are we only checking the rolls within 20 miles of his last known address? There's no standard to insure that every precinct is doing the same thing to verify whether or not this person was registered somewhere.
2) Did not vote from a former address of absentee ballot. What's the methodology for checking this out? Are we cross checking this name against every absentee ballot for the entire state? What procedure are we following to make this determination?
3) Voted in the correct precinct. What methodology do we follow to check this?
4) Completed and signed all required affirmation statements. Methodology?
5) In the case of a voter who did not provide HAVA required identification information when registering, has provided an acceptable proof of the applicant?s identity by the close of polls on election day at either the polling location or the board of elections. What is "acceptable" proof? What about polls that closed at 3am because of the long lines? Some of the language in this one is open to interpretation and again it sets forth no procedure or methodology.
From my reading of the complaint that's what they're getting at -- lack of uniform standard procedures and methodology for determining whether the criteria exists. I can see the equal protection argument here because the directive itself opens the door to varying standards from county to county or precinct to precinct by failing to specify procedures and methods. His directive lays out the end result, but it leaves it up to you to decide how to get there. That might be okay in an office environment where you're assigning a task to a subordinate. It's unacceptable in insuring the accuracy of our electoral process -- that simply can't be left to the whim of Tom, Dick or Harry in Franklin County -- we need to know that everyone throughout the state is following the same procedure to insure accuracy and fairness in the process.
The directive says that the provisional ballot will not be counted unless:
1) The voter was registered to vote somewhere in Ohio during the thirty days before the election. It does not set forth any methodology any procedure for determining whether the voter was registered "somewhere" in Ohio. There's nothing here to insure that every precinct is following the same methodology for making this determination. Are we checking the voter rolls in every county of Ohio to see if this person was registered somewhere? Are we only checking the rolls within 20 miles of his last known address? There's no standard to insure that every precinct is doing the same thing to verify whether or not this person was registered somewhere.
2) Did not vote from a former address of absentee ballot. What's the methodology for checking this out? Are we cross checking this name against every absentee ballot for the entire state? What procedure are we following to make this determination?
3) Voted in the correct precinct. What methodology do we follow to check this?
4) Completed and signed all required affirmation statements. Methodology?
5) In the case of a voter who did not provide HAVA required identification information when registering, has provided an acceptable proof of the applicant?s identity by the close of polls on election day at either the polling location or the board of elections. What is "acceptable" proof? What about polls that closed at 3am because of the long lines? Some of the language in this one is open to interpretation and again it sets forth no procedure or methodology.
From my reading of the complaint that's what they're getting at -- lack of uniform standard procedures and methodology for determining whether the criteria exists. I can see the equal protection argument here because the directive itself opens the door to varying standards from county to county or precinct to precinct by failing to specify procedures and methods. His directive lays out the end result, but it leaves it up to you to decide how to get there. That might be okay in an office environment where you're assigning a task to a subordinate. It's unacceptable in insuring the accuracy of our electoral process -- that simply can't be left to the whim of Tom, Dick or Harry in Franklin County -- we need to know that everyone throughout the state is following the same procedure to insure accuracy and fairness in the process.
Sorry, but THAT would be pathetic if THAT is what they are trying to argue!
What you are saying is that these people who work in the precincts wouldn't know how to look up whether someone is a registered voter and has been for at least 30 days?
'Oh, Mr. Judge, I know what I need to look up and am fully capable of doing it, but I need to know exactly what I should look at!'
Ummm, try looking up the person in the voter rolls and the date they registered to vote! Duh!
I am sorry, but exactly what METHODOLOGY is it you are looking for?
Sorry to come off so strong, but this sounds like an excuse. If you are serious about this methodology thing, I would really like to hear exactly what YOU might recommend this methodology should look like.
QUOTE(Robin @ Nov 17 2004, 11:17 AM)
brossignol -- what Blackwell's directive is missing and what I think the complaint is getting at is a complete lack of standardized uniform procedures for making the various determinations laid out in the directive. Blackwell's directive sets forth the criteria for counting provisional ballots, but no procedures for actually carrying out the count. He gives you the what [to count] but not the how.
The directive says that the provisional ballot will not be counted unless:
1) The voter was registered to vote somewhere in Ohio during the thirty days before the election. It does not set forth any methodology any procedure for determining whether the voter was registered "somewhere" in Ohio. There's nothing here to insure that every precinct is following the same methodology for making this determination. Are we checking the voter rolls in every county of Ohio to see if this person was registered somewhere? Are we only checking the rolls within 20 miles of his last known address? There's no standard to insure that every precinct is doing the same thing to verify whether or not this person was registered somewhere.
2) Did not vote from a former address of absentee ballot. What's the methodology for checking this out? Are we cross checking this name against every absentee ballot for the entire state? What procedure are we following to make this determination?
3) Voted in the correct precinct. What methodology do we follow to check this?
4) Completed and signed all required affirmation statements. Methodology?
5) In the case of a voter who did not provide HAVA required identification information when registering, has provided an acceptable proof of the applicant?s identity by the close of polls on election day at either the polling location or the board of elections. What is "acceptable" proof? What about polls that closed at 3am because of the long lines? Some of the language in this one is open to interpretation and again it sets forth no procedure or methodology.
From my reading of the complaint that's what they're getting at -- lack of uniform standard procedures and methodology for determining whether the criteria exists. I can see the equal protection argument here because the directive itself opens the door to varying standards from county to county or precinct to precinct by failing to specify procedures and methods. His directive lays out the end result, but it leaves it up to you to decide how to get there. That might be okay in an office environment where you're assigning a task to a subordinate. It's unacceptable in insuring the accuracy of our electoral process -- that simply can't be left to the whim of Tom, Dick or Harry in Franklin County -- we need to know that everyone throughout the state is following the same procedure to insure accuracy and fairness in the process.
The directive says that the provisional ballot will not be counted unless:
1) The voter was registered to vote somewhere in Ohio during the thirty days before the election. It does not set forth any methodology any procedure for determining whether the voter was registered "somewhere" in Ohio. There's nothing here to insure that every precinct is following the same methodology for making this determination. Are we checking the voter rolls in every county of Ohio to see if this person was registered somewhere? Are we only checking the rolls within 20 miles of his last known address? There's no standard to insure that every precinct is doing the same thing to verify whether or not this person was registered somewhere.
2) Did not vote from a former address of absentee ballot. What's the methodology for checking this out? Are we cross checking this name against every absentee ballot for the entire state? What procedure are we following to make this determination?
3) Voted in the correct precinct. What methodology do we follow to check this?
4) Completed and signed all required affirmation statements. Methodology?
5) In the case of a voter who did not provide HAVA required identification information when registering, has provided an acceptable proof of the applicant?s identity by the close of polls on election day at either the polling location or the board of elections. What is "acceptable" proof? What about polls that closed at 3am because of the long lines? Some of the language in this one is open to interpretation and again it sets forth no procedure or methodology.
From my reading of the complaint that's what they're getting at -- lack of uniform standard procedures and methodology for determining whether the criteria exists. I can see the equal protection argument here because the directive itself opens the door to varying standards from county to county or precinct to precinct by failing to specify procedures and methods. His directive lays out the end result, but it leaves it up to you to decide how to get there. That might be okay in an office environment where you're assigning a task to a subordinate. It's unacceptable in insuring the accuracy of our electoral process -- that simply can't be left to the whim of Tom, Dick or Harry in Franklin County -- we need to know that everyone throughout the state is following the same procedure to insure accuracy and fairness in the process.
Again brossing's arguments lack any credability: They have no merit. The Blackwell's actions are a laughing stock, and that's why attorneys are suing him, as they have no place in state law.
QUOTE(Activisms @ Nov 17 2004, 12:52 PM)
Again brossing's arguments lack any credability: They have no merit. The Blackwell's actions are a laughing stock, and that's why attorneys are suing him, as they have no place in state law.
Riiiiight! And once again, Activisms fails to support his statements with anything other than..... well, nothing!!
Thanks, Activisms!!! All of your efforts make me look so good!!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.