Judge Blocks Voter ID Law In Ohio

[Columbus]

Judge Marbley today issued a temporary restraining order against voter ID requirements in Ohio. He will consider a permanent injunction next week. Blackwell has to inform all 88 country Boards of Elections tomorrow that they cannot require voters to present IDs when voting.

[whistle]

1. Go, the voter ID law is just a way to keep minorities from voting

[jcv1]

2. Yee Haw!

Fantastic! And to those who don't yet see the problem with requiring ID's, take a 21 year old into a convenient store to buy alcohol and see the inconsistencies of requiring, and interpreting the various ID's out there.... the same thing is happening in every Board of Elections.... human errors all over the place. Also, if the requirement kept just one eligible voter from exercising his/her Constitutional right to vote, the law was too restrictive.

[EFerrari]

6. Welcome to DU and you bet!

:)

[williesgirl]

3. A judge respects the Constitution - shame our officials don't.

recommended

[rodeodance]

4. another bing for blackwell.

[BillORightsMan]

13. A BIG BING for the OH GOP

...the same crazies who came up with HB 3 that made this law in the first place.

This would be Strike Two on HB 3, since the Proof of Citizenship requirement of HB 3 has already been stayed.

imo the only way the GOP can hope to win ANY statewide races is to shrink the number eligible voters and challenge every dem voter in any way they can.

K & ARRRRR!!!
:toast:

:patriot:

[EFerrari]

5. Ha! One for the good guys!

I hope Blackwell chokes on it.

[AtLiberty]

7. OMG! There's some sanity in Ohio, afterall!

!!!

[razors edge]

8. I'll take that as a compliment to all

the sane individuals in Ohio and just add that I hope the country doesn't blame us for the pukes stealing the elections, past and possibly future.

:hi:

[IndyOp]

9. If not Indiana - then YEAH for Ohio!!

The Indiana Voter ID case was heard last week by the Chicago Ciruit Court - likely no decision until waaaaaaay after the election.

:grr:

[fooj]

10. Way to go!!!!!!

[Gregorian]

11. The state is already appealing it. Linkola.

I figured they would. Here's the link.


http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/politics/15857059.htm

[INdemo]

12. I hope Indiana is next to have the ID law revoked....

[BillORightsMan]

14. Prof Dan Tokaji explains...

Today's Voter ID Hearing in Ohio at Election Law @ Moritz

EQUAL VOTE BLOG - DAN TOKAJI - Thursday, October 26

To the extent that these claims are backed up with evidence, there's a strong argument that the discretion vested in county officials violates the Equal Protection Clause, for reasons similar to those upon which the Supreme Court relied in Bush v. Gore. In that case, the Court concluded that the different recount standards being applied from county to county -- and sometimes even within a single county -- resulted in the "uneven treatment" of voters. As the Court put it: "This is not a process with sufficient guarantees of equal treatment." The same can be said of what's alleged to be going on with Ohio's voter ID rules. Of course, the Court famously avoided saying how this principle would apply to future cases, noting that "the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities." It nevertheless seems difficult to draw a principled distinction between the uneven treatment struck down in Bush and that alleged to be occurring in Ohio.

Interestingly, the State's opposition to the TRO does not deny the inter-county variations that plaintiffs allege, and makes no effort to draw any principled distinction between this case and Bush. Instead, the State relies on last Friday's opinion in Purcell v. Gonzalez to argue against last-minute injunctions to election rules. But Purcell does not establish a blanket bar to such injunctions. Instead, the Court recognized that late-issued injunctions can sometimes cause more problems than they solve.

While the Purcell opinion was not written with the care for which we'd hope, the Court seemed particularly troubled by the fact that the Ninth Circuit issued an injunction without any explanation of it's failure to defer to the district court's factual findings -- especially those relating to the balance of harms and public interest.

~BIG SNIP~
The State's brief thus fails to present strong arguments, either on the merits or on the equities, for denying a TRO.

more at link...

:patriot:

[seriousstan]

15. This only applies to absentee ballots.

Judge blocks Ohio ID rule for absentees

COLUMBUS, Ohio — A federal judge suspended Ohio's new voter identification law Thursday as it applies to absentee voting, saying the state's 88 counties are inconsistently applying the rule in the voting, which is already under way.

U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley granted the temporary restraining order on behalf of labor and poverty groups who sued Tuesday.

The ruling is in effect until Wednesday, when the judge will consider arguments from the same groups seeking to block application of the identification law for voters who go to the polls Nov. 7.

It's unclear how many absentee ballots have been cast since early voting began Oct. 3, said James Lee, spokesman for Secretary of State Ken Blackwell. None were scheduled to be counted before Election Day, and none will be disqualified, he said.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/4291436.html

[mirandapriestly]

16. I just heard on NPR that the numbers don't match on

people's drivers licenses and thousands of absentee ballots are "in question". I am not sure exactly what this means, I can't find anything on line, but it was about the absentee ballots.

[jody]

17. How can a "military identification" or "driver’s license number" be unconstitutionally vague? n/t

Judges ruling on THE NORTHEAST OHIO COALITION : FOR THE HOMELESS said:

QUOTE
Specifically, this Court finds that the phrases “current,” “other government document,”
“military identification,” and “driver’s license number” in the above provisions are
unconstitutionally vague and are being unequally applied by the Boards of Elections. Plaintiffs
have made a strong showing that these absentee voter identification requirements abridge the
Plaintiffs’ members’ fundamental right to vote by violating both the Due Process Clause and the
Equal Protection Clause. The above-referenced provisions violate the Due Process Clause
because the vagueness of the language will cause the election to be fundamentally unfair.
Because the absentee voter provisions are so vague, county Boards of Elections have handled
absentee voters differently, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. For these reasons, the
harm to Plaintiffs’ members and the general public is irreparable and must be prevented.
UNQUOTE

I understand how "current" and "other government document" are vague but not the other two.