Registration challengers in Ohio may be criminally liable

[Ms. Toad]

Poor Alex was not having a good day yesterday...

(Alex is the Republican "God" of Summit County - any elected Republican in Summit County will find him or herself on the unemployment roster soon thereafter)

http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/10042113.htm?1c

976 challenges to voter registration in Summit County withdrawn yesterday by the Republican officials when it was quickly discovered that the challengers had no personal knowledge of the basis for the challenges.

<<The challengers, all older longtime Republicans -- Barbara Miller, Howard Calhoun, Madge Doerler and Louis Wray -- were subpoenaed by the elections board and were present at the hearings. Akron attorney Jack Morrison, a Republican, volunteered to represent the four.

Democratic board member Russ Pry suggested that the four could be subject to criminal prosecution for essentially making false claims on the challenge forms. The form states that making a false claim is subject to prosecution as a fifth-degree felony.

On Morrison's advice, Miller then refused to take part in any hearings after Herold's, invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.>>

Alex Arshinkoff was forced to second the motion for withdrawal of the challenges yesterday, and suggested the statewide GOP chair should be held accountable for the fiasco.

On top of that, someone wants to spray paint his big sign:

http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/10044941.htm

If you're in a state with a challenge law (either registration or poll) you might want to check to see if there is a similar requirement for personal knowledge as to the basis of the challenges.

[fertilizeonarbusto]

1. tsk tsk

Know the rules before you break them. Karma's a bitch.

[spotbird]

2. Wonderful news to start my day. nt

[Gman]

3. I wonder if working off the cage1.xls file

where there's a list of returned registered letters that someone else sent off qualifies as "personal knowledge"? I would think working off a spreadsheet that someone else created makes it second hand knowledge.

[Ms. Toad]

6. Most of these were based on returned letters

One was a long time democratic voter who apparently routinely writes "rejected" on republican mail in the hopes of costing them a few pennies for return postage.

It would make an interesting case - but unfortunately the state GOP didn't bother to send anyone to make that argument....

Awwww.

(Standard rules of evidence probably don't apply in these hearings, but if there are criminal charges we may find out.)

[sam sarrha]

4. That shows the depth of their convictions..and their Charactor..F'n Nazi's

[Media_Lies_Daily]

5. Whammo!! That deserves a BIG kick this morning!

[Ms. Toad]

7. Yippee - my first kick

Usuallly my posts are the kiss of death for a thread...

[lil-petunia]

8. not true, ms. toad, but keep posting anyway!

[0007]

9. Keep your cool!

Vote as if your life depended on it, because it does.

Call 866 687-8683
If Poll Workers refuse you to vote for any reason

When you call the hotline, be prepared to give your name, telephone number, and note as many details as possible, including the names of the people who are involved.

[jayfish]

10. This Appears To Be LBN Worthy.

I would post it there as well. Excellent find.

Jay

[Ms. Toad]

11. Not hard to find

It was the lead story on the front page of the local paper:)

I'll post LBN, if someone hasn't beat me to it.

(Edited because I spell-checked everything but the subject...oops)

[Village Idiot]

12. HANG 'EM HIGH...

scumbags. I wonder what kind of backlash against these miscreants there will be after Kerry wins...

[ianrs]

13. kick nt

:kick:

[ianrs]

14. would you put it in the Campaign 04 forum also?

I linked to this in a reply to a story in Voter Probs forum.This seems terribly important!

[baldguy]

15. What's the penalty for perjury in Ohio?

[Ms. Toad]

16. Transcript of the hearing available

(and kick for the evening crowd)

Transcript of the hearing:

http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2004/oct/ohio/boardofelections281004.pdf

Since it's a .pdf file I can't cut and past intriguing snippets - but it is quite interesting.

The page 6 exchange about where the challenger filled the form out is interesting...one interpretation is that the question was asked for the purpose of gathering evidence for criminal prosecution (location of the crime is necessary to determine jurisdiction for prosecution) Hmmm...