Front Page
NMJ Search
International
Islamofascism
Government & Politics
National & Local
Progressivism
Culture Wars
Editorials
Commentary
Archive
NMJ Radio
Constitutional Literacy
Islamofascism
Progressivism
Books
NMJ Shop
Links, Etc...
Facebook
Twitter
Site Information
About Us
Contact Us
  US Senate
  US House
  Anti-Google




Democrats also are challenging laws such as voter-list purges, early-voting curbs and photo-identification mandates in courts in Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa, Florida and Ohio.
Social Bookmarking
Print this page.
Obama Campaign Asks Court
to Uphold Ohio Vote Ruling

Bloomberg.com
President Barack Obama’s campaign organization asked a US appeals court to uphold a lower-court ruling that equalized Ohio’s number of early voting days leading up to the Nov. 6 national election.

US District Judge Peter Economus ruled Aug. 31 that all Ohio citizens must be allowed to cast pre-Election Day ballots through Nov. 5, agreeing with the Obama campaign and state and national Democratic parties that Ohio’s plan to grant three more early or absent voting days to residents in the armed forces or living overseas was unconstitutional.

Economus last week rejected a request by Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted to delay enforcement of his decree until the federal appeals court in Cincinnati and then, potentially, the US Supreme Court reviews the case. The Obama campaign told the appeals court in a Sept. 17 brief that ending early balloting on Nov. 2 for all except overseas residents and military personnel imposes a significant burden on the right to vote.

“Making it more difficult for people to vote serves no public purpose,” Donald J. McTigue, a lawyer with Obama for America, wrote in the filing.

Ohio controls 18 of the minimum 270 Electoral College votes that Obama or Republican candidate Mitt Romney will need to win the presidency. Husted and Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine have said military voters face “special burdens,” including quick deployment and travel restrictions, justifying the three additional days under the US Constitution.

“The Equal Protection Clause does not prevent a government from applying different rules to those in demonstrably different circumstances,” DeWine said in his brief.

Democrats also are challenging laws such as voter-list purges, early-voting curbs and photo-identification mandates in courts in Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa, Florida and Ohio. US courts in August rejected election-related laws passed by Republican-controlled legislatures in Ohio, Florida and Texas, finding they violated the right to vote.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court today set aside a ruling that permitted enforcement of a voter photo-ID law, asking a lower court to assess alternative forms of identification.

DeWine and Husted, both named defendants in the Obama campaign’s suit, are Republicans. Economus was appointed to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, in 1995.

READ FULL SOURCE ARTICLE

Editor's Note: Why have any voting laws at all? Let's just ship ballots to Gaza...to wit, while the Obama campaign fights for the rights of fictitious voters, they have failed to enact a law that affords those in the military their assured voting rights...now, why do you think that is??


The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...

The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org are not funded by outside sources. We exist exclusively on tax deductible donations from our readers and contributors. Please make a tax deductible donation today.


The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...

The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org are not funded by outside sources. We exist exclusively on tax deductible donations from our readers and contributors.
Please make a tax deductible donation today.







Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of The New Media Journal, BasicsProject.org, its editorial staff, board or organization.  Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to The New Media Journal.  The New Media Journal is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations.  The New Media Journal is not supported by any political organization. The New Media Journal is a division of BasicsProject.org, a non-profit, non-partisan 501(c)(3) research and educational initiative.  Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org is copyrighted. Basics Project's goal is the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


The Media Journal.us © 1998-2013    Content Copyright © Individual authors
A Division of BasicsProject.org
Powered by ExpressionEngine 1.70 and M3Server