Judge bars challengers at Ohio polls

State GOP says it will appeal ruling with help from RNC

CINCINNATI, Ohio -- A federal judge Monday barred political party challengers from questioning Ohio voters' registrations at the polls on Election Day.

The state Republican Party immediately said it would challenge the judge's ruling in hopes of having the order overturned in time for Tuesday's election in Ohio, an important battleground state that could throw the presidential contest either way.

Polls show President Bush and his Democratic rival Sen. John Kerry virtually tied. Ohio is among six battleground states showing voters almost evenly split in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll released Sunday (CNN.com Poll Tracker, opinion poll figures)

The Republican Party has said it wants its challengers at polls.

Following a rare Sunday night hearing on the issue, U.S. District Judge Susan J. Dlott said that allowing inexperienced challengers to question voters' registrations at the polls would disrupt the election process.

According to the judge's ruling, Republicans in Ohio filed "for hundreds of challengers to be physically present in the polling places in order to challenge voters' eligibility."

In her ruling, Dlott said that "disruption of this system by over 1,100 lawyers who have no experience in the process" would impede voting.

Mark Weaver, attorney for the state Republican Party, said an appeal of Dlott's ruling would be filed Monday morning.

Dlott's ruling came on a lawsuit by an African-American Cincinnati couple who said Republican plans to place challengers at polls in largely black precincts in Hamilton County was meant to intimidate and block blacks from voting.

In a similar case, U.S. District Judge John Adams of Akron also barred parties from putting challengers at the polls, saying poll workers are the ones who should decide on voters' eligibility, according to The Associated Press.

The Summit County Democratic Party had filed suit, saying the law allowing registration challenges is unconstitutional because disqualified voters wouldn't get a chance to appeal in time before voting, the AP reported.

Carlo LoParo, a spokesman for Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, told the AP the two rulings apply to all 88 counties in the state.

__________________
"Traffic is alot lighter on the EXTRA mile."

There's an update on this: the appeals court overruled this judge and it will be permissable for poll watchers to be in polling places in Ohio. Democrats immediately took it to the U.S. Supreme Court and they won't hear it.

Court gives election watchers go-ahead
SAM HALSTEAD

A UNITED States court today gave the go-ahead for voters to be challenged at polling stations in the key state of Ohio amid Republican claims of potential widespread electoral fraud.

A federal appeals court cleared the way for "voter challengers" to attend polling stations in a move which could pave the way for a legal challenge to the result of today’s election.

The ruling by a three-judge panel of the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals overturned earlier decisions by two federal judges that the move would break state law. "

This is been permissable in the past and shouldn't be changed during the middle of an election. Not to mention.....in 4 of Ohio's counties there are new registrations that total MORE than the number of voter-age residences in those counties. That tells you right there that there's some hanky-panky that's gone on. And for a fraudulent voter to be able to cast a vote does nothing but DISENFRANCHISE legitimate voters by cancelling out their legitmate vote. Good for the Court of Appeals. It was the correct ruling.

http://news.scotsman.com/internation...?id=1265602004

__________________
"What exactly is this foreign policy experience?" Obama said mockingly of the New York senator. "Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no."

Yeah, that's wonderful. Make people re-register for every election. Have you considered what a paperwork and organizational nightmare that would be, as well as how much it would depress voter turnout?

We should be dismantling barriers to voting, not erecting new ones.

Voting is a RIGHT, not a privilege. You can have reasonable rules to prevent fraud, but other than that it is the state's responsibility to go out of its way to enable voting.

__________________
Man up.

for voting and figure out some way to eliminate possible fraud from absentee ballot voting.

Catz

__________________
I'll get nicer when you get smarter.

Agreed.

I'd like to see some sort of national voter registration database with hooks into the Social Security system to insure identities. Just don't know if it would be legal.

I also think the practice of paying people to register others should be done away with.

Yes, Catz, photo ID should be required, and yes, Klang, paying people to register causes more problems than it's worth, I think.

Not sure I approve of the Social Security idea, though. The point should be MINIMAL tracking that still provides a sturdy anti-fraud screen.

__________________
Man up.

"Voting is a RIGHT, not a privilege"

Voting is a PRIVILEGE, not a right....

prove me wrong!

if you CAN....

__________________
I was banned from godlike productions(over 400 times)... and loved it.

"I haven't made you angry, have I?" -Malcolm Reynolds

__________________
"Traffic is alot lighter on the EXTRA mile."

Cut and pasted from the Tom Daschle thread:

In the original Constitution, it was left up to the states to decide who could vote and who couldn't. That has slowly given way to federal law.

The 14th Amendment essentially gave the right to vote to all male citizens 21 years of age or older. States could restrict that right, but then their representation in Congress was also restricted. The amendment specifically referred to voting as a "right."

The 15th Amendment gave the right to vote to non-white males, and specifically refers to voting as a "right."

The 19th amendment gave women the right to vote, and specifically refers to voting as a "right."

The 24th amendment struck down poll taxes, and specifically refers to voting as a "right."

The 26th amendment lowered the voting age to 18, and specifically refers to voting as a "right."

It seems clear to me that voting is, indeed, a right enshrined in the Constitution through no less than five amendments.

__________________
Man up.