Ohio to Make GOP Hold on State Permanent

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

By Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_475.shtml

<snip>
In other words, the type of legal challenge mounted to the theft of Ohio's electoral votes in the 2004 election will now be all but impossible in the future.

Section 35-05.18 of HB3 requires restrictive identification requirements for anyone trying to vote in an Ohio election. Photo ID, a utility bill, a bank statement, a government check or other government document showing the name and current address of the voter will be required.

This requirement is perfectly designed to slow down the voting process in inner city precincts. It allows Republican "challengers" to intimidate anyone who turns up to vote in heavily Democratic precincts. It virtually eliminates the homeless, elderly and impoverished from the voting rolls. Election protection advocates estimate this requirement will erase 100,000 to 200,000 voters in a typical statewide election. By way of reference, George W. Bush allegedly carried Ohio -- and the presidency -- by less than 119,000 votes in 2004
<snip>

[napi21]

1. I don't understand????

Photo ID, a utility bill, a bank statement, a government check or other government document showing the name and current address of the voter will be required.

What kind of ID do you want? Who, at age 18+ wouldn't have one of those forms of ID?

I'm very familiar with the new Ga. law that demands thet every voter must have a "State issued ID"! The agrument against that is that in rural areas of our State, it's an extreme hardship to get a State ID. But the variety of ID's available to Ohio voters seems very fair to me.

Why do you disagree?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

2. The ID requirements...

...don't strike me as particularly unfair either---it is the least of what I find disturbing about HB3. From the editorial:

HB3 also ends the ability of the public to conduct meaningful audits of voting machines. Election protection activists recently forced the adoption of an auditable paper trail into the Ohio election process. In a state where virtually all ballots are cast and/or counted on electronic equipment, this cuts to the core of the ability to monitor an election's outcome. The new provision in HB3 will make the paper trail virtually meaningless.

HB3 further imposes a huge jump in the cost of forcing a recount. In 2004, the charge was $10 per precinct, with some 11,366 precincts in the state. Thus the Green and Libertarian Parties, which paid for it, had to pay somewhat more than $113,660. Now the charge will be $50 per precinct, jumping the charge to some $568,300.

Finally, and perhaps most astonishingly, HB3 eliminates the state statutes that have allowed citizens to challenge the outcome of federal elections within the state. After the 2004 election, election protection advocates filed a challenge to Bush's victory. Their attorneys were attacked with an official attempt to levy sanctions, and then were thwarted from an effective suit when GOP Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell locked up the state's voter records.

But HB3 would now entirely eliminate any possibility of a state-based legal challenge. The only alleged recourse for those wishing to officially question the vote count in a presidential, US Senate or US House race in Ohio would be at the United States Congress. There is now no recourse whatsoever on the state level.

This is the stuff that worries me.

[napi21]

3. Is there a way to take this to the SCOTUS?

I realize it would probably be expensive, and yes we have Alito, but it sounds illegal to me! I'm not sure of the exact process required to challenge this ruling. I guess it could be the OH SC and if failed there, take it to the SCOTUS, but I have to believe it can be done! Aren't ther any sharp Dem attorneys in OH that could do this at a reduced rate or even pro bono?

The rulling is, in my opinion, a dramatic over-reach of authority and unconstitutional!!!!

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

6. I think a compelling case...

...could and should be made challenging this bill's constitutionality.

[SharonAnn]

4. Elderly woman, no Driver's License, Utilities in husband's name.

Disabled adult, no driver's license, no utility bills because they live at an apartment where utilities are paid.

Bank statement shows P. O. box because of relatively frequent moves.

[roseBudd]

5. Because the poor Ohioans who don't drive won't know about the ID...

requirement. The felons in Ohio don't even know that they are allowed to vote. They assume and the GOP is happy to foster that assumption, that they are barred from voting.

So we are expecting the poor who already have really low voting rates to return home to retrieve ID, return to the polls and wait in line again?

In addition, in the ghetto there are plenty of people who "stay with" someone. This means there is no utility bill, probably no government check and no drivers license because if they can't afford their own place they surely can't afford a car.