Ohio judge uphelds early-voting in November

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

It must be uniform across the states.

Article 2, Section 1

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

Wrong. That's pretty obviously referring to the members of the Electoral College, not to the popular vote.

Well, it is up to Congress to set the time for "chusing the Electors," and should be uniform across the states.

JJ needs to learn antecedents.

[Franzl]

It must be uniform across the states.

Article 2, Section 1

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

Wrong. That's pretty obviously referring to the members of the Electoral College, not to the popular vote.

Well, it is up to Congress to set the time for "chusing the Electors," and should be uniform across the states.

Is text comprehension this difficult for you?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

While J.J. sometimes makes big goofs, this one is only a small one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The uniform election day is set by law, not by the Constitution, but it is set.  However, it is worded in such a way that if States wanted to start letting people cast their votes now for 2016, they could, so long as they don't get counted until the specified day.

[BigSkyBob]

Federal judges aren't imposing anything. The Ohio GOP attempted to deny early voting to everyone but military voters living within the state.

That's an obvious and barefaced violation of equal protection, so the law was tossed out, and OH's election processes reverted to what they had been for several years - early voting for everybody.

Since military voters are federally protect class, it isn't so clear that any violation of "equal protection" has occured. On the other hand, if the judge believed that the provisions affecting military voters violated the Constitution's mandate of equal protection, the correct remedy would have been to strike down those provisions, not the entire law.

[BigSkyBob]

While J.J. sometimes makes big goofs, this one is only a small one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The uniform election day is set by law, not by the Constitution, but it is set.  However, it is worded in such a way that if States wanted to start letting people cast their votes now for 2016, they could, so long as they don't get counted until the specified day.

While the Constitution may very well allow early voting, it does not establish a "Brezhnev doctrine" in which once a state has chosen early voting it cannot reconsider that decision in whole, or part. The federal judge simply did not give proper deference to the legislature in Ohio.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

While J.J. sometimes makes big goofs, this one is only a small one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The uniform election day is set by law, not by the Constitution, but it is set.  However, it is worded in such a way that if States wanted to start letting people cast their votes now for 2016, they could, so long as they don't get counted until the specified day.

While the Constitution may very well allow early voting, it does not establish a "Brezhnev doctrine" in which once a state has chosen early voting it cannot reconsider that decision in whole, or part. The federal judge simply did not give proper deference to the legislature in Ohio.

If Ohio had wanted to eliminate early voting in those three days, or in its entirety, that would be one thing, but to selectively make it easier to vote for only particular groups?  Nope.  That fails the stench test big time.  Hence the law was rightfully overturned and the election law was restored to its previous status, with Ohio free to make changes so long as they are not discriminatory.

[BigSkyBob]

While J.J. sometimes makes big goofs, this one is only a small one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The uniform election day is set by law, not by the Constitution, but it is set.  However, it is worded in such a way that if States wanted to start letting people cast their votes now for 2016, they could, so long as they don't get counted until the specified day.

While the Constitution may very well allow early voting, it does not establish a "Brezhnev doctrine" in which once a state has chosen early voting it cannot reconsider that decision in whole, or part. The federal judge simply did not give proper deference to the legislature in Ohio.

If Ohio had wanted to eliminate early voting in those three days, or in its entirety, that would be one thing, but to selectively make it easier to vote for only particular groups?  Nope.  That fails the stench test big time.  Hence the law was rightfully overturned and the election law was restored to its previous status, with Ohio free to make changes so long as they are not discriminatory.

Another remedy would have been to strike down the military voting provisions. The question is simply which remedy shows the proper deference to the state?

Whether the provisions "fail the stench test big time," or are a rational reaction to acts such as Bill Clinton just happening to order Florida servicemen deployed on the very morning of the 2000 election is another question.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Another remedy would have been to strike down the military voting provisions. The question is simply which remedy shows the proper deference to the state?

What was found objectionable was changing the law to give preferential access to the polls to some voters.  Hence the remedy that restored the prior law shown the proper deference.  If the prior law had been that there was no early voting during those three days, then reverting to that would have shown proper deference.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No question about it.  It's the former.

[minionofmidas]

I like the judge's name...

[Likely Voter]

I just cant get around the whole issue that the net result of this and other laws is to decrease the number of people voting. And I dont see how any one can defend that.

[J. J.]

While J.J. sometimes makes big goofs, this one is only a small one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The uniform election day is set by law, not by the Constitution, but it is set.  However, it is worded in such a way that if States wanted to start letting people cast their votes now for 2016, they could, so long as they don't get counted until the specified day.

Well, first, I did not say anything about a specific day.

Congress, however, "may determine the Time of chusing the Electors," presumably by statute.  They have.  They could say, "the third consecutive Monday in August,"  "October 15," or "the day after the first full moon in May," but Congress gets to set it.

[BigSkyBob]

Another remedy would have been to strike down the military voting provisions. The question is simply which remedy shows the proper deference to the state?

What was found objectionable was changing the law to give preferential access to the polls to some voters.  Hence the remedy that restored the prior law shown the proper deference. 

The "Hence" simply does not follow. In general, when a law has provisions that are deemed unconstitutional, those provisions are struck down, not the entire law.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And, if the legislature had ended early voting in one law, and passed special provisions for servicemen in another, do really believe that the same judge would have ordered the end of early voting for servicemen?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No question about it.  It's the former.

[/quote]

IYO.

[greenforest32]

http://www.npr.org/2012/10/05/162391971/u-s-court-reinstates-early-voting-in-ohio?ft=1&f=1001

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Think they're going to appeal to SCOTUS now?

[greenforest32]

Think they're going to appeal to SCOTUS now?

Yup: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/09/ohio-secretary-of-state-to-appeal-early-voting-ruling-to-supreme-court/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Edit: just saw the other thread, but this one has more background/links