2 Judges Bar Party Challengers at Polls (actually, 2 Ohio and 1 NJ)

[maddezmom]

CINCINNATI - Two federal judges Monday barred Republican Party representatives from challenging the eligibility of voters at polling places on Election Day.



U.S. District Judge Susan Dlott said that a black couple suing over such challenges would probably be able to prove them unconstitutional. In a similar case in Akron, U.S. District Judge John Adams said it is up to regular poll workers to determine if voters are eligible.


In a related ruling in Newark, N.J., a federal judge said a GOP list challenging the registration of 23,000 voters in Ohio unfairly targeted minority voters, and violated a decades-old order prohibiting such tactics. The GOP had claimed many of the names were fraudulent.


"The public interest is always served by encouraging people to vote," Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise said.

more: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=716&e=4&u=/ap/20041101/ap_on_el_pr/ohio_voting

And the repubs have already appealed, according to CNN reports.

[keithjx]

1. Thanks!

I was just asking about this on another thread.
sweeeeet!!

Also...

"If the challengers are barred from polling places, the only people under state law who could then issue challenges to would-be voters would be the four election officers at each precinct, two Republican and two Democrat, or another voter." </snip>

What would the basis for a voter to challenge another voter? Seems to me this would get uglier than pseudo-official challengers challenging someone....

[clydefrand]

2. What gives anyone other than regular poll workers who

verify name and address of each voter to challenge any one? I've never heard of such crap! I would love to see someone challenge my right to vote. :-( He or she would never be able to work a touch screen or pull a lever or whatever again.

[maddezmom]

3. Ohio SoS Blackwell's response:

Complying with the rulings, Ohio Republican Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell ordered all challengers from all political parties to be excluded from polling places throughout the state.


But in a statement, he made clear he disagreed with the rulings and intended to resolve the issue through appeals after the vote.


"Following the election, I will institute litigation bringing together all parties to resolve the statutory and constitutional issues so they may be fully litigated and determined once and for all," Blackwell said

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1521&ncid=696&e=2&u=/afp/20041101/pl_afp/us_vote_ohio_challengers

[WildClarySage]

10. Gee, I thought republicans were all for

tort reform and stopping frivilous lawsuits...

[msanthrope]

4. I wonder if the Jersey District Court binds the entire Third Circuit---

Meaning, Philadelphia and all of PA...--

I believe that the judge is ruling on a consent decree that was ordered in 1981--will try to find the link.

[msanthrope]

5. More on the Jersey case......Attorneys---Please comment....

How far does this ruling, which notes the violation of a consent decree, go???


http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/1099173608

SNIP..
The woman, Ebony Malone, claims through her lawyers that the voter challenges violate a 1982 consent decree in New Jersey in which the Republican National Committee agreed to refrain from "ballot security activities ... where racial or ethnic composition" was a factor. The RNC admitted no wrongdoing

Debevoise expanded the 1982 decree five years later, requiring that the RNC get court permission before undertaking any ballot security program nationally.

One of Malone's lawyers, Craig Livingston, said a ruling could have implications beyond Ohio.

"We have a permanent injunction that deals with the abuse by the Republican National Committee to use racial and ethnic composition as a factor affecting their challenges," Livingston said.

[msanthrope]

6. Guys--I think this binds the RNC as a whole, but

would someone who has a law degree take a look at this????

[NashVegas]

7. Just Heard on CNN

that the Ohio supreme court okayed it by a 4-3 vote.

state vs federal issue.

[maddezmom]

8. so they reversed the judges???

[maddezmom]

9. some clarification from another DU thread #10 and11

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1260507#1260831