The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old October 17, 2008, 11:08 AM   #1
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 15, 1999
Location: Ohio
Posts: 7,558
SCOTUS Decides Ohio GOP Voter Challenge
High court rejects GOP bid in Ohio voting dispute
Oct 17 11:54 AM US/Eastern

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court is siding with Ohio's top elections official in a dispute with the state Republican Party over voter registrations.

The justices on Friday overruled a federal appeals court that had ordered Ohio's top elections official to do more to help counties verify voter eligibility.

Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, a Democrat, faced a deadline of Friday to set up a system to provide local officials with names of newly registered voters whose driver's license numbers or Social Security numbers on voter registration forms don't match records in other government databases.

Ohio Republicans contended the information for counties would help prevent fraud. Brunner said the GOP is trying to disenfranchise voters.
Ohio seeks to block voter challenge ruling
Thursday, October 16th, 2008 10:22 am | Lyle Denniston

Ohio’s top election official has asked the Supreme Court to put on hold a federal judge’s order requiring steps to verify the voter registration rolls across the state, arguing that the order had “destabilized” the election situation just three weeks before voters go to the polls. An application for stay (Brunner v. Ohio Republican Party, et al., 08A332) was filed Wednesday night with Justice John Paul Stevens, who handles emergency matters from the Sixth Circuit. (An attached exhibit can be found here.) The plea by Ohio authorities relies heavily upon the Supreme Court’s per curiam ruling two years ago in Purcell v. Gonzalez, found here, in arguing against court challenges to voting procedures close to election time.

The judge’s order imposes a Friday deadline for Ohio’s Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner, to reprogram a statewide database after state Republicans complained that the state had failed to verify voter data as required by a federal law (the Help America Vote Act). The en banc Sixth Circuit Court, in a 9-6 ruling Wednesday, refused to block that order. (The Circuit Court’s opinions can be found here.)

Under the federal law, state officials are to verify information about who is registered by comparing a statewide registration database with data in the drivers’ license files of the state voter vehicle agency. If the files do not match, county election boards are to be notified in an attempt to get the records updated.

The Ohio Republican Party went to court, claiming that the Secretary of State had turned off this vote verification process. The party, along with a state legislator who joined in, contended that Secretary Brunner had stopped checking with county boards when mismatches were found. Their complaint contended that this would lead to voting by individuals who are not eligible.

The lawsuit was also prompted by the Secretary’s order in August allowing would-be voters to register and votge on the same day, for early voting in late September and early October. A federal judge on Oct. 10 ordered the Secretary to take steps to meet the matching requirement, either by sending lists of mismatches to county election boards, or giving those boards a method to search the state database in order to act on the mismatches. A three-judge panel that day lifted the order temporarily, but the en banc court removed that stay Wednesday.

In asking Justice Stevens, and potentially the full Supreme Court to step in, Secretary Brunner argued that the judge’s order requires her staff and 88 county election boards to divert their attention from preparing for the Nov. 4 election, to a large undertaking to refashion the statewide voter database.

The application contended that the order may encourage a flood of lawsuits across the nation, disrupting the election process and threatening to require many voters to cast provisional ballots, thus perhaps deterring them from voting.

Justice Stevens may act without asking state GOP officials to respond, or wait until there is a response. He also has the option of sharing a decision with his Court colleagues, or acting alone.

UPDATE: Ohio Republicans urged Justice Stevens and the Court to deny any temporary postponement of the judge’s order, arguing that the merits of the dispute have not been decided and there is no basis for the Justices to interfere with a temporary restraining order. The brief in opposition noted that the Secretary of State had not yet filed a petition for review with the Justices. And, it pointed out that the Sixth Circuit has said explicitly that, if the Secretary was having trouble comply with the judge’s order, she could return to that judge to get the order revised.

The AFL-CIO and other labor groups sought permission to join in the Supreme Court stay review, arguing primarily that the Ohio GOP had no legal right to sue to challenge duties that federal law imposed on state officials without creating any private rights to be enforced.

UPDATE 9:40 p.m. The final brief has now come in — the reply brief from the Secretary of State. It is here.

This should allow all those illegally registered voters in Ohio (Thanks ACORN! :barf to cast votes for Obama. That said, let's try to keep the discussion on the topic of SCOTUS involvement and the salient points of the Ohio Republican Party (ORP) and Ohio Secretary of State Brunner.

Surprisingly, after a quick perusal, I tend to side with Sec. St. Brunner and don't believe that the ORP has standing to bring this case. Still, Brunner isn't obeying the spirit of the law in providing sometimes worthless information to the local elections boards.
-Dave Miller
NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Firearms Safety, Personal Protection.
Tick-off Obama - Join the NRA Today - Save $10
TheBluesMan is offline  
Old October 17, 2008, 11:29 AM   #2
Al Norris
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,541
This may have dire consequences, nationwide.

If bona-fide voters cannot have the secure knowledge that their vote actually counts, this may end up much, much worse than Bush v. Gore (2000).
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 17, 2008, 03:29 PM   #3
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2006
Location: Southwest US
Posts: 277
The decision still allowed for those registrations that fail the database check to be removed.

No news here.
It would be rather like saying 'He filled and kicked the bucket' to mean "He filled the bucket and died.' Grotesque.
nobody_special is offline  
Old October 18, 2008, 03:28 AM   #4
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,698
The SCOTUS order.
gc70 is offline  
Old October 19, 2008, 11:13 PM   #5
44 AMP
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 17,246
So, if I read this right....

SCOTUS vacated the TRO because they say the issuing court doesn't have authority over the issue? And they make no judgement about whether or not the issue is valid, only that the court involved doesn't have the authority to decide it (and issue a TRO)? Is that correct?

I'm not a lawyer, and never claimed to be, so sometimes the finer points, and even the underlying principles of these thing get past me in the legal jargon. SO, am I understanding this right, or have I missed something?

Anyone...? Anyone?....Bueler?.....
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old October 20, 2008, 12:21 AM   #6
Al Norris
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,541
In this per curiam* order, does not answer the question of whether or not the Ohio Secretary of State is in compliance with the "motor voter law." The opinion states that the respondents (the Ohio Republican Party) are not likely to have standing to sue.

The TRO was thrown out and the Ohio Secretary is able to do as she was doing before.

After reviewing the Statute in question and the relevant CFR's, I've come to the conclusion that only a higher authority within the State or the Federal Election Commission has standing to sue for relief (Since I'm not an attorney, I could very well be wrong).

* per curiam: "by the court." An unsigned order of which the whole court agrees.
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 20, 2008, 07:53 AM   #7
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2005
Posts: 3,733
After reviewing the Statute in question and the relevant CFR's, I've come to the conclusion that only a higher authority within the State or the Federal Election Commission has standing to sue for relief (Since I'm not an attorney, I could very well be wrong).
That seems to be my impression as well. It is not that the SCOTUS said everything happening was good but that the proper protocol in filing suit was not followed.

The meat of the matter, possibly hundreds of thousands of false voter registrations, is troubling to say the least but certainly not new. Remember the great quote from Chicago, "Vote Early, Vote Often." Bottom line is we as a nation need to do something to address voter fraud. Sadly I doubt it will happen.
"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies." Thomas Jefferson

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin
Musketeer is offline  

brunner , election , ohio , scotus , vote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:40 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2016 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent:
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.06829 seconds with 7 queries