Ohio Justice Throws Out Election Challenge

[wicket]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041216/ap_on_el_pr/ohio_vote


The Ohio Supreme Court's chief justice on Thursday threw out a challenge to the state's presidential election results. But the 40 voters who brought the case will likely be able to refile the challenge.

Chief Justice Thomas Moyer ruled that the request improperly challenged two separate election results. Ohio law only allows one race to be challenged in a single complaint, he said.

The challenge was backed by the Rev. Jesse Jackson and Cliff Arnebeck, a Columbus attorney for the Massachusetts-based Alliance for Democracy, who accused Bush's campaign of "high-tech vote stealing."

Claiming fraud, the voters cited reports of voting-machine errors, double-counting of some ballots and a shortage of voting machines in predominantly minority precincts as reasons to throw out the election results.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. I thought repubs didn't like to let criminals off on technicalities

[Nikepallas]

4. They don't let Democratic, hard working "criminals" off but Repugs can

get off all the time.

[forgethell]

11. Wasn't this a civil suit?? n/t

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

24. yes..it was a joke

[Darth_Kitten]

22. LOL Perfect.

:thumbsup:

[The Backlash Cometh]

27. They're tough on everybody else's crimes, but cover up their own.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[underpants]

8. Welcome to DU lwrachel

:hi:

[Redleg]

13. Strike one for you too.

If you know what I mean.

[Redleg]

28. Looks like strikes two and three too.

Loser disruptor.

[bluetrain]

3. shit

[BrainRants]

5. If Ohio law only allows one race per complaint...

HOW COME WE DIDN'T FREAKI'N KNOW THAT???????

(emphasis added!)

[FogerRox]

7. Ditto

DOg gon it

[hang a left]

9. You would think that they would have some competent

attorney working on this. Doesn't look like it.

[KoKo]

10. That's EXACTLY what I was thinking and about to post! If Kerry's lawyers

are involved then why the hell didn't they know Ohio law?? And, surely there are Democratic Layers Locally who know Ohio Law Backward and forward!

Makes us look incompetent once again...just like in 2000 when Gore got bad advice and we ended up with David Boise who didn't know S*IT about US Election Law!

FGS what are we here...a bunch of Keystone Cops? Jesse Jackson knows lawyers...he knows Black/Civil Rights Lawyers in Ohio...he could have had any of them on board.

What is this??? :nuke: Steam coming from my head...

[Leilani]

14. Bingo!

"Incompetence" is too kind a word.

[Redleg]

15. It could be the judge is misinterpreting the law.

Don't be so damned quick to attack Kerry's lawyers- besides, we don't know for sure his lawyers are involved in this action.

[Daisey Mae]

6. Maybe

this decision won't hold

[ChicanoPwr]

12. That was too picky

[Pachamama]

16. What if Kerry filed the Challenge?

Anybody know?

Just curious.... :eyes:

[Pachamama]

17. This sounds like it was thrown out on a technicality...the lawyers need to

re-write and re-submit.....I am sure they are doing it as we speak....

:kick:

[KoKo]

20. Arnebeck used Chief Justice Moyer's as an example...maybe a mistake

because Arnebeck has been after him for awhile...or maybe it was a "calculation.." You have to read the Yahoo release carefully. And, Yahoo/AP releases are often written to favor the Repugs...]

Here's the interesting quote:

The allegations are based on an analysis comparing the presidential race to Moyer's Supreme Court race against a Cleveland municipal judge.

But nothing in state law or any previous court decision allows challenges to be combined, Moyer said.

[papau]

18. Is it the consolidation of Kerry with Cobb that was thrown out?

two minor party candidates requested and the Kerry campaign supports.

BUT

Nothing in state law or any previous court decision allows challenges to be combined,


so it seems what is thrown out is the consolidation ?????

By the way, the Judge is a GOPer.

[Griffy]

19. Its up to us... March on DC 1/6/05 WE will challenge the results! nt

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

21. RTFA

"Were this court to sanction consolidation here it would establish a precedent whereby twenty-five voters could challenge, in a single case, the election results of every statewide race and issue on the ballot in any given election,"

Which is all fine and good with us until the Republicans decide use it as a tool, I suspect.

[wildflower]

23. "The 40 voters ... will likely be able to refile the challenge."

Hmm.

I don't quite understand what's going on here...I hope they do.

[Liberty Belle]

25. I can't open any discussions in the 2004 election section. Why?

I click on the threads and get an error message. Is anyone else having this problem?

[desi826]

26. This is exactly what the supreme court did..

in 2000.
They are trying to waste time, till 1/6.
When the ballots were brought to Washington Scalia waited one weeks time before they heard it,only to send it back to Florida supreme court.
When Bush v. Gore was issued, it was, in the end, decided to send the case back to Florida knowing that would take even MORE time, while giving them a cover from the charge of outright partisanship.
This is no different.
Des

[Habibi]

29. "Don't panic"

says Susan Truitt of CASE Ohio, here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CASE_OH/message/6569

They will refile by Monday at the latest. An inconvenience, not a show-stopper.

[wicket]

30. kick

:kick:

[HeeBGBz]

31. I believe this was intended

If I recall the conversation on DU last night. I'm looking for the thread.

Here it is. Read Post 180.

OHIO SUPREME COURT ANNOUNCEMENT JUST UP


Cliff is awesome. He knows what he's doing. Mellow.

[grumpy old fart]

32. old news, no biggie, will be refiled today. n/t

[Poppyseedman]

33. Question???

Without listing specific evidence, the complaint alleges that 130,656 votes for Kerry and John Edwards (news - web sites) in 36 counties were somehow switched to count for the Bush-Cheney ticket.

Does the complaint have to present evidence to back up it's allegations or the judge need to take the complaint at face value?

Is Arnbeck putting the cart before the horse?

I would assume the court would want to see something before spending time and money.