High court rejects GOP bid in Ohio voting dispute

[scytherius]

Source: Breitbart

"The Supreme Court is siding with Ohio's top elections official in a dispute with the state Republican Party over voter registrations."

Read more: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93SBC3O0&show_article=1

---

Wow. This is HUGE not just for Ohio but for voting in general.

[gabeana]

1. Great news, I think drudge should have the flashing lights for this

not the bogus poll

[livelongandprosper]

5. What bogus poll?

I won't go to Drudge so enlighten me.

[gabeana]

7. Some AP/yahoo poll that has O 44 M42

it was pretty much an internet poll
and now it is not the lead story the Supreme court case now is at the top of the page

[rcrush]

54. .

[Tarc]

21. FReeperland is flipping the fuck out over this

:toast: :toast: :toast:

[Lil Missy]

66. Good!

[keekers]

27. they merely decided that a private group shouldn't enforce HaVA

not sure what that means for any future caging

[wryter2000]

43. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[bluestateguy]

2. Is it over? No more options for the GOP?

nt

[scytherius]

4. That should do it

It's a full court decision so there is no appeal anywhere. Can't wait to read it to see the basis. It may be no more than there just isn't enough time for Ohio to proceed as the Appellate Court decreed. Therefore, it's not a decision on the merits but, still, VERY nice.

[ObamanationYes1]

36. No, the Supremes didn't rule on the merits of the case..just on those bringing the case

Others can file a new suit...Not sure who...An individual? An elected official? Beats me, but I am quite sure someone will...anything to keep from talking about the economy.

[TygrBright]

40. No. This was just a simple rejection based on standing...

...in that the party bringing the suit lacked the legal standing or basis to bring the suit. It's entirely possible that some other party might bring a similar suit there or elsewhere and have standing to justify a full court review and decision.

Effectively, they just said "We're not saying yes or no on what's at issue here, merely that the people TAKING issue don't have sufficient legal interest to make it worth our while to look at the case."

Example: I can't sue the County Clerk of Rio Arriba County for conducting voter registrations incorrectly because I am not a candidate for office or a registered political party and besides, I live in Santa Fe County. I might have a very good case but I don't have the standing to bring suit.

This doesn't stymie the GOP as a whole but it will shove a spoke in the wheel of many of their astroturf front groups trying to make trouble for its own sake.

informatively,
Bright

[DeeDeeNY]

48. Thanks for this clarification.

And a belated thank you for the great work you did during the convention. I made sure to read all of your posts, and between you and our other two "reporters", I felt like I was there!
:thumbsup:

[hedgehog]

3. Sounds like the Supreme Court has decided Sarah shouldn't be President!

:woohoo:

[Kajsa]

6. Excellent!

No more tricks, smears and fears GOP!

:woohoo:

[Myrina]

8. ... at least not via THIS venue ... however ...

... we still have to keep our eyes open for 'Plan B' cause you know they've got one.

[bertman]

19. and 'Plan C' and 'Plan D' and 'Plan E', etc. etc.

[Hawkeye-X]

59. Eh, what's after Plan "Z"?

[bertman]

68. Don't know. I only got to "V", for Vendetta. ((-;

[norepubsin08]

74. Plan AA

[Kajsa]

62. Oh yeah they do!

Sorry- didn't mean to sound so final in that statement.

I'm just glad they got nailed in this case.

:)

[Stuart G]

9. Best News of the week,....... ....wonderfull.

Yes..................

[brooklynite]

10. Damn those liberal Judges!

[blue sky at night]

11. everyone was getting a little shaky about this...

but I knew the Dems we put in office in 2006 would take care of the pukes who are only "trying to prevent voter fraud"....and they did. This was just on the AP News at NOON, but I really had to see your post to confirm it!

O H I O


is going


B L U E !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


CHange, HOpe, OBama!

[OhioChick]

12. High court rejects GOP bid in Ohio voting dispute

Source: AP

19 minutes ago

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.


Read more: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h5P2f-dgLBCzuRdaaWR2BTYBb81AD93SBAJO0

[Eric J in MN]

13. I had predicted they would rule with the GOP on this. Glad to be wrong. NT

NT

[jberryhill]

15. Text of Order

JENNIFER BRUNNER, OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE
v. OHIO REPUBLICAN PARTY ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR STAY


PER CURIAM.

On October 9, 2008, the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio entered a temporary restraining
order (TRO) directing Jennifer Brunner, the
Ohio Secretary of State, to update Ohio’s Statewide Voter
Registration Database (SWVRD) to comply with Section
303 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), 116
Stat. 1708, 42 U. S. C. §15483(a)(5)(B)(i).* The United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied the
Secretary’s motion to vacate the TRO. The Secretary has
filed an application to stay the TRO with JUSTICE

STEVENS as Circuit Justice for the Sixth Circuit, and he
has referred the matter to the Court. The Secretary argues
both that the District Court had no jurisdiction to
enter the TRO and that its ruling on the merits was erroneous.
We express no opinion on the question whether
HAVA is being properly implemented. Respondents,
however, are not sufficiently likely to prevail on the ques-
tion whether Congress has authorized the District Court
to enforce Section 303 in an action brought by a private
litigant to justify the issuance of a TRO. See Gonzaga
Univ. v. Doe, 536 U. S. 273, 283 (2002); Alexander v.
Sandoval, 532 U. S. 275, 286 (2001). We therefore grant
the application for a stay and vacate the TRO.


——————
* Title 42 U. S. C. §15483(a)(5)(B)(i) (2000 ed., Supp. V) states, in
relevant part:
“The chief State election official and the official responsible for the
State motor vehicle authority of a State shall enter into an agreement
to match information in the database of the statewide voter registration
system with information in the database of the motor vehicle authority
to the extent required to enable each such official to verify the accuracy
of the information provided on applications for voter registration.”

[RedSpartan]

14. Link to opinion:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08A332.pdf

[wryter2000]

44. Wow

That Supreme Court. I thought maybe we were talking about the Ohio Supreme Court.

Did Scalia bust a blood vessel?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

49. he has blood? from whose neck, I wonder.

[scytherius]

16. ***UPDATE - THE BASIS FOR THE RULING***

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SCOTUS_VOTER_REGISTRATION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULThttp://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SCOTUS_VOTER_REGISTRATION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT


The basis for the ruling is lack of standing, i.e. that the party requesting the relief does not have the right to request that relief. The Court did not address the merits of the GOP case. What they could do is to rush another party who may have standing to file the same suit and try and rush it through. Doubt that they can get it done in time but stay tuned.

And, as an aside, one of the very first thing all courts look at is whether or not a party has the right to bring a suit, standing, venue, etc. So the fact that the ruled on standing is no indication how they might ultimately rule on the merits.

[scytherius]

22. Read the ACT (HAVA) and some cases. The standing issue.

From a quick reading of HAVA and the standing issue it appears that only the U. S. Attorney General may file for relief persuant to the Act. So, unless the GOP can get the U. S. AG to file, this issue is over for this election.

[amitten]

39. What do you think the chances of that are?

He WAS appointed by Regan...

[jwirr]

17. I got an email from Palast and RFK jr today about the stealing of

the election and it scared me because that is the only way they can possibly win. What do other DU people think about this. Can they?

[sasquatch]

18. Awesome

:bounce:

[bluesmail]

20. Another October Surprise I can live with.

[DuaneBidoux]

23. I also heard some funnybusiness about Florida this morning on NPR but didn't follow. anyone?

Anyone know what this was about?

[katty]

24. Great! - the supremes: part 2: the apology

[Jack Rabbit]

25. Well, that's good

Let's hope this puts a dent in voter suppression movements.

[kirby]

26. Supreme Court 'per curiam' ruling...

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08A332.pdf

[4lbs]

28. Wow! I thought for sure that the right-leaning USSC would side with the Ohio state Republicans.

Looks like it will be a little tougher for the Republicans to steal Ohio.

[wishlist]

29. Thanikfully, the corrupt Repubs stranglehold over all Ohio politics is gone nt

[ellie]

30. YES!

Take that, you repuke fuckers.

[DS1]

31. The GOP sure do love voting and country first!

:eyes:

[kpete]

32. High court rejects GOP in Ohio voting dispute

Source: MSNBC

High court rejects GOP in Ohio voting dispute
Republicans had won order that state do more to check eligibility

BREAKING NEWS

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court sided Friday with Ohio's top elections official in a dispute with the state Republican Party over voter registrations.

The justices 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.

Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27238980/

---

Supreme court ruling
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/ohio-order-10-17-08.pdf

[Hope And Change]

33. K & R!

[kirby]

34. delete

[Doremus]

35. I'm thrilled for us, SoS Brunner and most of all our Democracy.

The GOP -- thwarted again. I could get used to this, lol.

[Botany]

37. For everything that Blackwell was bad @ Brunner is good.

Way to go Jennifer Brunner.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

38. Whew!

Good damn thing Obama voted for Breyer!







:spray:

[wryter2000]

45. LOL

He voted for Earl Warren, too. Amazing guy, that Obama.

[wryter2000]

41. That's awesome!

Hooray for the Attorney General. :bounce:

[sonias]

42. A great day for voting rights in Ohio

And to the GOP - fuck you, you dirty cheating bastards!

:toast:

Sonia

[emptypockets]

52. Um...who's cheating?

What will you say when Barry's win is over thrown due to voter fraud?

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Judi Lynn]

57. Go ahead and post that proof you've got. If you care about the truth, you'd do it. n/t

[Nevernose]

70. Bush spent years investigating allegations of ACORN voting fraud

And nobody ever found anything.

Why do you live your life in fear?

[jonestonesusa]

46. Thanks for posting this!

It's a great victory for voting rights in America.

I'm going to Madison, Wisconsin on Thursday to witness the oral arguments in a civil suit, brought by the Republican Attorney General, to similarly disenfranchise newly registered voters.

If anyone is interested in writing the judge to express your opinion, you can do so at the address below. I've also posted a news article on the case written by the Milwaukee area League of Women Voters.

Please convey your opinion to the judge if you have time. Maybe then we can join in the defense of voting rights in Ohio and keep Wisconsin blue in 2008.

Discussion link:
http://www.rootswire.org/category/organization/wisconsin-government-accountability-board

Judge Maryann Sumi, Branch 2 Judge (who will rule in this dispute):
http://www.countyofdane.com/clrkcort/judge/

[Deep13]

47. Her name is Jennifer Brunner and she's Ohio's Democratic secretary of state!

And I cannot begin to express how happy we are with her. She has fought tirelessly to undo the damage Ken Blackwell did in 2004 and to prevent local boards of election from do the same thing on a county level. She is just wonderful.

[pleah]

50. K&R Great news.

:)

[emptypockets]

51. That's too bad.

The Supreme Court had the opportunity to help stamp out voter fraud and they let us down! No one should be cheering for this!

[robinlynne]

53. YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! unbelievable!!!!!!!!

[rcrush]

55. Maybe the Supreme Court thinks its best to avoid a 2000 scenarios this time. n/t

[Judi Lynn]

58. Thank you, scytherius! What a rush to see something decent relating to the Ohio G.O.P.

Welcome to D.U. :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi:

[JMDEM]

60. GOP Loses in Ohio Voting Dispute

Source: MSNBC

High court rejects GOP in Ohio voting dispute

Republicans had won order that state do more to check eligibility

Court rejects Ohio GOP vote dispute

Oct. 17: The U.S. Supreme Court has sided with Ohio's Secretary of State in a lawsuit filed by Republicans over voter registrations. NBC's Pete Williams reports.
MSNBC


updated 11:56 a.m. MT, Fri., Oct. 17, 2008
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court sided Friday with Ohio's top elections official in a dispute with the state Republican Party over voter registrations.

The justices 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.



Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27238980/

---

Good news!

[patrice]

61. marking for later.

[villager]

63. Supreme Court throws out Ohio Republicans' election lawsuit

Source: LA Times


Supreme Court throws out Ohio Republicans' election lawsuit

The state party's suit could have made it easier to challenge newly registered voters.

By David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court today threw out a lawsuit brought by the Ohio Republican Party that could have made it easier to challenge tens of thousands of newly registered voters.

The high court, in a brief opinion, said the federal law that called for computer checks of new voters did not authorize private lawsuits to enforce it.

The ruling is a victory for Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, a Democrat. She said she feared "chaos" on election day if the GOP were permitted last-minute challenges to new voters based on data on file with the state Department of Motor Vehicles.

Ohio, always a closely contested state, has seen more than 600,000 new registered voters this year. Brunner said she feared that as many as 200,000 of them could be challenged and forced to file provisional ballots if there were a mismatch between the information on their voter registration cards and the data on file with the DMV.

One example came to light this week. Joseph Wurzelbacher, or "Joe the Plumber," became a celebrated figure in the third debate between John McCain and Barack Obama. But several Ohio newspapers said his name is misspelled as "Worzelbacher" in the state's records. That mismatch could have led to his being challenged at the polls if he had been a newly registered voter.

<snip>


Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-scotus18-2008oct18,0,3579254.story

[Historic NY]

64. great news the tide is turning.

[ejbr]

65. The Supremes must see the writing on the wall...

uphold the rule of law with the party that respects the rule of law or descend into anarchy with the repigs.

[Lil Missy]

67. I wonder if there was a USSC split on this. For example,

Scalia and Thomas are not known for such trivial matters of fairness and legalities when it comes to elections.

Heads must be exploding in freeper-ville tonight!

[happyslug]

69. No split, the order was "PER CURIAM." i.e. by the court as a whole

Remember the issue the Supreme court hung they that on was the underlying act only say the Attorney General of the US can bring an action to force a State to use Driver's registration to check Voter's registration. Since the Attorney General did NOT bring this suite (The GOP of Ohio did instead) the court ruled the case to be dismissed, for no one but the Attorney General of the US can bring this action, and the Attorney General did NOT.

Note that the court did NOT rule on the merit of the case but that only the Attorney General can bring the action. If the Attorney General brings the action then standing is no longer a problem, but until the Attorney General does, Ohio can do as it pleases.

For a copy of the ORDER see:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08A332.pdf

For the underlying Statute on HAVA:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/15483.html#a

42 USC § 15485, leaves it up to the state to implement the above NOT the Federal Government or Courts:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00015485----000-.html
"The specific choices on the methods of complying with the requirements of this sub-chapter shall be left to the discretion of the State. "


42 USC § 15551 Gives the Attorney General the right to enforce the above:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00015511----000-.html

The Attorney General may bring a civil action against any State or jurisdiction in an appropriate United States District Court for such declaratory and injunctive relief (including a temporary restraining order, a permanent or temporary injunction, or other order) as may be necessary to carry out the uniform and nondiscriminatory election technology and administration requirements under sections 15481, 15482, and 15483 of this title

Notice private cause of Actions are NOT mentioned, the Court interpreted this to mean ONLY the Attorney General can bring the action, not private individuals. In fact the use of the term "May" generally means the Attorney General can bring the action, but does NOT have to. Given that the STATE are to implement this program (§ 15485) implies that if any court action is permitted under this section (Other then by the US Attorney General) has to be in STATE COURT. i.e. Ohio Courts and such courts will almost always defer to elected officials on something like this. Furthermore the HAVA requires an administrative system 42 USC § 15512: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00015512----000-.html

[Lil Missy]

71. Thank you for your thorough explanation. I did not understand the meaning of "PER CURIAM."

I did read the ruling and understood they did not rule on the merits of the case, but that it had been improperly been brought up by an unauthorized, private litigant. And that the District Court had no jurisdiction in the matter.

Which pisses me off even more. Like the District Court could make shit up and rule erroneously on a partisan basis, and have it backed up by a partisan right wing USSC.

Flashbacks to knucklehead vs. Gore, anyone?

And freepers are frothing at the mouth at the "rule of law." Oh, cry me a fucking river.

[Imagevision]

72. Can't believe Blackwell never got antime for pulling his stunts in 04 election - intentionally

keeping the number of voting machines low in high black voting precincts! repugs are pissed because stealing an elecetion is quite as easy as it use to be.

[machI]

73. Kick