Slashdot Mirror
Judge Says Ohio Must Allow Provisional Ballots
expriest writes "A Federal Judge has held that the state of Ohio must provide a provisional ballot to persons who claim to be registered, but whose names do not appear on the voter rolls. This decision reverses a policy by Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, who was only allowing the provisional ballots in limited circumstances. Furthermore, the Judge put some teeth behind his ruling, allowing persons denied provisional ballot to sue the election official so doing for money damages."
especially the suing part. last time in that florida fiasco some voters were told they had to have a driver's liscence to vote. an obvious lie that hopefully only some first time votors would believe.
at least in ohio the election officials will think twice before f*cking with someone's right to vote
Wow you're ignorant. Voting is what those of us in the legal profession call a "fundamental right," that means that the state must prove they are fulfilling the most compelling interest and have considered every posible alternative before constructing any barriers whatsoever. That's not silly liberalism, it's a basic Constitutional right.
Its about time someone put Blackwell in his place. IIRC, Blackwell is also for throwing out ballots that were cast in improper precincts.
Usually, if a voter came to the wrong precinct, they could just vote a provisional ballot and then have any levies that they weren't eligible to vote for be not counted. Now Blackwell wants the entire ballot to be thrown out. Not to mention he didn't accept voter registration forms that were correctly filled out, but weren't on the proper paper stock.
I'm not going to say this is partisanship on Blackwell's part, but let it be known that Ohio is run by the Republicans at every level of government.
But as usual, this seems to be opening the door for possible fraud, since it seems you could only verify that each person voted once after the fact, unless there is some kind of centralized electronic database of whether or not each registered voter in Ohio voted or not.
What's to stop me from crossing the state and going into to every poll and state "Oh, my! I am in the wrong place. Please let me vote, anyway because my bunions hurt and I could not possibly wait in line again"? If there is a reasonable way to verify people can only vote once, and a reasonable chance that someone who tries to vote twice will be convicted of voter fraud (that is illegal isn't it?), then this seems fair. If the provisional ballots are different and identifyable then I guess this would be true.
Any time the voting procedure is changed these days I'm suspicious that it is driven by the desire to disenfranchise voters of one party or inapproapriately enfranchise those of the other. Maybe it's all the hype, but it seems everyone is going out of their way to cheat.
Regardless of how it falls, I hope it's by a big enough margin that we don't see a repeat of 2000, because it's a good bet the state legislatures haven't learned the lessons of Florida in 2000.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Looks like I can vote at as many places as I can drive to on November 2! Good thing you don't have to provide evidence of citizenship in Ohio (or most other states). Honestly though, why do some people think it's a good thing to allow anyone to just walk into the polls and vote without I.D., evidence that they live in that precinct, etc.? Feeling disenfranchised? Just drive up to Ohio and vote as many times as you want! Let that stress out! phew...
I live in Ohio too, and I didn't have to worry about not getting to vote this year, or last year, or the year before, or the year before ... no problems ... no worries.
I strongly believe there ought to be some kind of IQ test and lower IQ limit to the voting process. There are plenty of people in society who can't, for instance, add or subtract 2 numbers under 20 without a calculator. I'm quite generous in the standard, say anyone scoring a 69 IQ or below would not be allowed to cast a vote.
In the past, requiring pre-registration and requiring people to vote only at their assigned polling place served that purpose to a limited degree. This ruling is going to help those in society who are cognitively challenged vote, and I'm not convinced that's such a good thing.
My affinity for hyperbole knows no bounds
how is that other western nations manage just fine without pre-registration?
or is usa some 3rd world country that doesn't know who even should be able to vote(being citizens)? sorry for asking..
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
it doesn't matter how smart you are when shit like this happens
this may help stupid people to vote (which i have nothing against) but more importantly it stops corrupt election officials from derailing (even more so) the democratic process.
... So I guess I'm going to get to vote Republican TWICE!!!
Thanks, Liberal Federal Judges!!!! And remember, kiddies... Voter Fraud works both ways!
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
is that politicians run the entire voting process, from registration down to the actual polling on election day. How can an election ever be considered fair when partisian elements control the process from the very top?
We have an independent agency here in Canada called, appropriately enough, Elections Canada. Their sole purpose is to organize and execute the federal election process (each province maintains a similar independent agency to monitor provincial elections). The system has been refined over many years to eliminate any partisan influence to the point that even the returning officer in each polling station cannot vote in the election to ensure impartiality. The point being that our Attorney General, or whoever, would never have the ability to grab a stack of registration forms and toss them in the trash, it just doesn't work that way.
Ever since the microscope was focused on the election system in the U.S. since the Floridian Fiasco I am still shocked to see how blatantly political it is. The system we use in Canada is not perfect, no system is, (in fact it is quite antiquated as we still use paper and pen for all elections) but when the chief electorial officer has a stake in the outcome of an election it just beggars belief that anyone would accept that the election to follow would be as fair as possible.
What many in the world consider to be the heart of democracy deserves better than this.
You know, there is a reason for universal suffrage.
"Black people don't have the education and the cultural background for democracy"
"Women are mentally far to unstable to vote."
"Only working people may vote, because only they contribute to the society."
Yes, there may be more intelligent voters and dumber voters, but who gets to decide, which ones are the right ones? And who will ascertain that the exlusion won't be partisan or arbitary like in the "cited" cases in the past?
But most importantly, what gives one the right to exclude those people to vote on their own rulers?
If you think that your electoral constituency is too dumb, don't disenfranchise them, educate them.
In a democracy, you may not get the government you need or want. But at least, you get the government you deserve.
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
This judge made a decision to ensure that Democracy is preserved -- the only people that would oppose such a decision are Fascists and other supporters of totalitarianism.
Otherwise you are just asking for voter fraud.
Provisional ballots are probably one of the worst ideas ever. They seem tailor made to insure fraud does occur.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Since we were never intended to be a democracy, but a representative republic, your ideas on why there is universal sufferage fall apart. Read the federalist papers some time. Universal sufferage is not the wonderful thing we've all been indoctrinated to believe it is.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.