Supreme Court Won't Block Early Voting in Ohio.....

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — The Supreme Court sided with Democrats on Tuesday in refusing to block a decision over disputed early voting days in the battleground state of Ohio, giving President Barack Obama's campaign a victory three weeks before the election.

The court refused a request by the state's Republican elections chief and attorney general to get involved in a battle over early voting on the three days before Election Day.

Obama's campaign and Ohio Democrats sued the state officials over changes in state law that took away the three days of voting for most people but made exceptions for military personnel and Ohioans living overseas.

Democrats in their lawsuit cited a recent study saying nearly 105,000 people voted in the three days before the election in 2008. They argued everyone should have the chance to vote on those days. And they said eliminating the opportunity for most Ohio residents to vote in person on those days, while giving military or overseas voters the chance to do so, leads to unequal treatment.

Shortly after the high court's decision, Husted ordered uniform hours across the state. The hours are from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. on Saturday, Nov. 3; from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. on Sunday, Nov. 4; and from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. on Monday, Nov. 5......snip~

High court won't block early voting in Ohio - Yahoo! News
Associated Press – 57 mins ago<<<<< More here!

Seems both parties have been filing lawsuits over voting.....huh? Watcha thinks about that?

Looks Like Obama and the Demos win on this one.....and In Ohio too. A Battleground state!

Damn SC , who do they think they are, allowing people to vote, and I hear that early voting means more minorities will be able to vote...

Surely there is a way we can stop that, right?

Chickenhawks said:

Damn SC , who do they think they are, allowing people to vote, and I hear that early voting means more minorities will be able to vote...

Surely there is a way we can stop that, right?

Click to expand...

Hmmm.....I dunno. Seems we got Obama suing some states and then we have Romney suing over those Absentee ballots for the Military, which the last year they were suppose to have taken care of the Military vote with that online voting.

I wonder what happened and why the Administration didn't get that taken care of since they handed out the money for it?

MMC said:

Hmmm.....I dunno. Seems we got Obama suing some states and then we have Romney suing over those Absentee ballots for the Military, which the last year they were suppose to have taken care of the Military vote with that online voting.

I wonder what happened and why the Administration didn't get that taken care of since they handed out the money for it?

Click to expand...

dont wonder, do credible research and post the results here and prove to youself that Obama has done nothing to prevent counting votes of the military

then be prepared to provide about 3000 paragraphs of research on how the right in this country has exercised election fraud for decades

you can start with Katherine Harris in Florida or you can go back to Nixon committing treason with the Vietnamese or Reagan's treason with Iran...

Chickenhawks said:

dont wonder, do credible research and post the results here and prove to youself that Obama has done nothing to prevent counting votes of the military

then be prepared to provide about 3000 paragraphs of research on how the right in this country has exercised election fraud for decades

you can start with Katherine Harris in Florida or you can go back to Nixon committing treason with the Vietnamese or Reagan's treason with Iran...

Click to expand...

Course Obama is only Part of that Party who began it all in the first place. Course we can just look at the Demos from last year in Wisconsin.....huh?

The Mitt Romney campaign has filed a federal lawsuit in Wisconsin seeking a five-day extension for absentee voters overseas and in the military.

The campaign for the Republican presidential candidate is concerned about 44 ballots that the state’s Government Accountability Board says were sent out by local election officials after the Sept. 22 deadline. Under federal election law, all ballots are to be returned by Nov. 9 (three days after the general election); the Romney campaign wants that deadline pushed back to Nov. 14 for overseas absentee ballots.

Ahead of Friday's action in Wisconsin, the Romney campaign had filed similar complaints with state election officials in Michigan, Mississippi, and Vermont – indications of just how closely presidential campaign officials are monitoring states' compliance with election law in an effort to ensure that their own candidate is not shortchanged in the 2012 vote count in a whisker-close race.

To expedite the process, the state received a $1.9 million grant from the US Department of Defense’s Federal Voting Assistance Program this year to develop My Vote WI (myvote.wi.gov), an online ballot delivery system that allows US citizens voting from overseas to print their ballots immediately and return them by mail to be counted.

A phone call seeking comment from the Government Accountability Board was not returned by deadline.....snip~

Romney campaign sues over absentee ballots in Wisconsin - CSMonitor.com

Again, why did you say Obama and the Demos gave them the money last year?

Of course they allowed it. Those poor people who cannot afford ID might have to walk three days in the snow uphill both ways to cast their votes. They are the true patriots, not those silly old military folks who sit around on their butts all day collecting a government check for nothing.....oh wait, did my dyslexia just kick in.....

I don't think the federal govt has the power to decide when states can hold elections. It is purely a state perogative. The govt can only assure that all are allowed to vote, and that's the extent of it.

Here's an idea: How about we make it as easy as possible fo EVERYONE to vote, regardless of the demographic?

American said:

I don't think the federal govt has the power to decide when states can hold elections. It is purely a state perogative. The govt can only assure that all are allowed to vote, and that's the extent of it.

Click to expand...

This was a court case that went to the SCOTUS, that is how this works. The proper chain of command was followed.

Sarcogito said:

Here's an idea: How about we make it as easy as possible fo EVERYONE to vote, regardless of the demographic?

Click to expand...

Well.....I like the Idea. But lets make it Clear for all......I would say for every American Citizen to Vote.

Although.....I would have questions with those that carry Dual Citizenship. Wouldn't you?

MMC said:

Well.....I like the Idea. But lets make it Clear for all......I would say for every American Citizen to Vote.

Although.....I would have questions with those that carry Dual Citizenship. Wouldn't you?

Click to expand...

Well sure. Everyone who is eligible.

Though I am much more concerned about these institutional attempts to make it tougher to vote than I am worried about any kind of in person voter fraud.

American said:

I don't think the federal govt has the power to decide when states can hold elections. It is purely a state perogative. The govt can only assure that all are allowed to vote, and that's the extent of it.

Click to expand...

Well Election Day is set forth in law, it is what comes before that which is the issue.

Fisher said:

Well Election Day is set forth in law, it is what comes before that which is the issue.

Click to expand...

Does the law say you can't vote earlier than that. I know absentee ballots get special treatment.

American said:

Does the law say you can't vote earlier than that. I know absentee ballots get special treatment.

Click to expand...

Nope because the early votes do not count until Election Day. The SCOTUS largely leaves it up to the states. The Bush v. Gore decisions were related to the FL Supreme Court's interpretation and application of the FL law, not any specific federal rights issues. Elections are generally viewed as political matters and the SCOTUS doesn't hear purely political cases as a rule of thumb.

Since SCOTUS has voted against Romney in Ohio am I correct to assume that the similar cases in Wisconsin, Minnesota and others will also crash and burn?

wolfman24 said:

Since SCOTUS has voted against Romney in Ohio am I correct to assume that the similar cases in Wisconsin, Minnesota and others will also crash and burn?

Click to expand...

Would probably depend on what the state law says and whether or not it is being complied with. That the SCOTUS does not take up a case does not mean that they agree with it.

Fisher said:

Would probably depend on what the state law says and whether or not it is being complied with. That the SCOTUS does not take up a case does not mean that they agree with it.

Click to expand...

I think your missing something here. SCOTUS took up the case because it involved a national election. The same Romney arguments are being made in the states I mentioned and more. So, from what I understand, IF Romney appeals to SCOTUS on something they have already ruled on they well just say good luck with that and turn another page.