Federal Judge Restores Early Voting In Ohio After Obama Suit
U.S. District judge Peter C. Economus ruled that "restoring in-person early voting to all Ohio voters through the Monday before Election Day does not deprive UOCAVA voters from early voting."
"Instead, and more importantly, it places all Ohio voters on equal standing," Economus ruled. He said the state "fails to articulate a precise, compelling interest in establishing the 6 p.m. Friday deadline as applied to non-UOCAVA voters and has failed to evidence any commitment to the 'exception' it rhetorically extended to UOCAVA voters."
The Romney campaign had falsely accused Obama of trying to curtail military voting when the suit simply sought to force the state to make early voting available to all Ohio voters.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/federal-judge-restores-early-voting-in-ohio-after?ref=fpa
and Yesterday:
Texas' voter ID law struck down in federal court
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021232901
WOOOHOO!!!
= new reply since forum marked as read
I do wonder, however, with all of the changes that states have made since 2008/2010 and subsequent challenges if anybody will be able to accept the election results in November- whatever they may be. 
I believe that we need to eventually adopt some kind of uniform voting system in this country, at least for federal offices. These state-by-state patchwork of laws, voting methods, and attempts to purge voting rolls, require identification that some people don't have an easy time getting is starting to create a mess for our election system and, with close elections like 2000, makes it difficult for everybody to fully trust the integrity of the voting process. Why do we have to make it so complicated in this country- and then wonder why a lot of people have just given up on voting and participating in the political process. It's particularly creepy that there is a group of people out there that willingly admit that they don't want "certain people" to vote- knowing that they won't vote in their favor. That sort of attitude ought to be denounced and villified, not codified into law IMHO!
Challengers seeking to block the new voter ID law argued in a filing with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Thursday that a lower court decision applied the wrong legal standards in assessing the potential harm of the requirement.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania and other opponents of the law requiring photo identification at the polls are appealing the decision of a Commonwealth Court judge that the requirement should go forward for the Nov. 6 general election. They had argued that many voters lack acceptable identification and that some would be unable to acquire the documents in time. But Judge Robert Simpson ruled that obtaining and presenting identification is not an unconstitutional burden and allowed the law to proceed.
The voter ID proposal passed the Legislature with the support of Republicans, who said it would protect the integrity of elections. Democrats and advocates for the poor vigorously opposed the measure, arguing it would prevent vulnerable -- but eligible -- voters from casting their ballots.
In a legal brief filed on Thursday, the groups challenging the law asserted that the Commonwealth Court was incorrect in requiring them to show the law would cause "inevitable" -- rather than "immediate" -- harm. They argued, too, that the lower court erred in declining to hold that voting meets the legal standard of a fundamental right.
Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/state/pa-voter-id-opponents-appeal-to-high-court-651286/#ixzz2599hb9TS
Let's hope this voter's rights trend continues.
