Free Markets, Free People


Obama campaign moves to restrict military voting in Ohio

Breitbart’s Mike Flynn reports:

President Barack Obama, along with many Democrats, likes to say that, while they may disagree with the GOP on many issues related to national security, they absolutely share their admiration and dedication to members of our armed forces. Obama, in particular, enjoys being seen visiting troops and having photos taken with members of our military. So, why is his campaign and the Democrat party suing to restrict their ability to vote in the upcoming election?

On July 17th, the Obama for America Campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and the Ohio Democratic Party filed suit in OH to strike down part of that state’s law governing voting by members of the military. Their suit said that part of the law is "arbitrary" with "no discernible rational basis."

Currently, Ohio allows the public to vote early in-person up until the Friday before the election. Members of the military are given three extra days to do so. While the Democrats may see this as "arbitrary" and having "no discernible rational basis," I think it is entirely reasonable given the demands on servicemen and women’s time and their obligations to their sworn duty.

Flynn cites the National Defense Committee which reports:

[f]or each of the last three years, the Department of Defense’s Federal Voting Assistance Program has reported to the President and the Congress that the number one reason for military voter disenfranchisement is inadequate time to successfully vote.

So here is a law actually trying to provide a little extra time to address the problem cited (btw, the members of the military would most likely have to show their military picture ID to be granted the opportunity to vote during that “extra time”).  Why the resistance from the Obama campaign and Democrats?   Why the intent to disenfranchise military voters?

If the polls are to be believed concerning how the military is likely to vote, it wouldn’t favor Obama or the Democrats.  And, of course, Ohio is a swing state.  So they want no extra time allowed for the military to vote (and don’t expect the DoJ to jump in here and take the side of the military either).

Mystery solved.

But hey, the military is still useful as props during photo ops and when they help burnish the C-i-C’s rep by killing bad guys like Osama.  Voting?  Yeah, not so much.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

26 Responses to Obama campaign moves to restrict military voting in Ohio

  • Drago’s First Law: No standard the Collective seeks to impose on us applies to them.
    Shaidle’s First Law: “It’s different when we do it”.

    While Holder’s DoJ turns itself inside out to defeat voter integrity laws…
    another wing of the Collective does what they have done traditionally…deprive service members of their franchise.

  • Every time you hear a dimocrat whining about voter ID’s suppressing voters, point to this.

  • Don’t you mean finally being allowed to kill bad guys like Osama?

  • I read the complaint, and it does not appear to say anything remotely similar to the story posted above. The suit asks that Ohio reinstate in-person absentee voting on the three days immediately preceding Election Day for all Ohio voters.

    There is a (partisan) description in the body of the complaint itself of how the current situation came to be, and why the plaintives feel that the current law violates the 14th Amendment, but the fact is that the suit is asking for more time for all voters, not less time for military voters.

    From the complaint:

    “1. Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to restore in-person early voting for all Ohioans during the three days prior to Election Day – a right exercised by an estimated 93,000 Ohioans in the last presidential election. Ohio election law, as currently enacted by the State of Ohio and administered by Defendant Ohio Secretary of State, arbitrarily eliminates early voting during the three days prior to Election Day for most Ohio voters, a right previously available to all Ohio voters. This disparate treatment violates 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth”

    “For these reasons and those specifically alleged herein, Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from implementing or enforcing the HB 224 and SB 295 changes to Ohio Rev. Code § 3509.03, thereby restoring in-person absentee voting on the three days immediately preceding Election Day for all Ohio voters.”

    http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/husted-complaint.pdf

    Any group of words, when suffiently tortured, will admit to anything and my guess is that words in the suit were tortured to say that Democrats don’t actually want 3 days MORE voting for all Ohioans, but 3 days LESS voting for some Ohioans (though that outcome WOULD recitify the alleged 14th Amendment problem it is absolutely NOT what the suit is asking for). And I am sure the people stories like this are aimed it won’t even question it.

    • I agree with some of the logic in Capitanus’ post.
      I note in passing, however, this is an odd position for someone who supports affirmative action to take.  Since when is it a “bad thing” to afford a group an advantage?  Especially a group, in this case, that is at a clear disadvantage to others in the voting population?
      Leaving aside, also, any examination of the “arbitrary” arguments in the pleading, which I find dubious at best.

      • I don’t support affirmative action, although I do support equal access to education regardless of the tax base of an area a person happens to reside in.

        I also don’t neccessarily agree that there is a 14th Amendment problem with taking the military status of an individual into account. However, this particular case argues that the advantage is given purely for military status only, when the servicemen are physically in the county at the time of the election. I have no problem with servicemen having advantagees, but I also see the law that Ohio tried to pass, and how there was extended voting for all Ohioans in the law as separate items, but that only the portion of the law that protected military votes was injoined, while the same advantages for the general population was not injoined, so the Democrats do have a case (they might lose, but they have a case).

        Clearly, the Democrats believe that extended in person absentee voting will benefit, hence the lawsuit. I am not so naive as to think this has anything to do with fairness or equal treatment under the law. When those things overlap, it is just coincidence. Just as I don’t believe voter ID laws have anything to do with preventing voter fraud. It’s all politics on both sides, if a side wants something, they see it as beneficial to their side, not some altruistic notion of a free and clean elections. They might have opinions that support altrustic notions, but when money spent and action is taken by one side, bet on it, that side considers it politically advantageous to them.

        • Just as I don’t believe voter ID laws have anything to do with preventing voter fraud.

          The people of the various states do.  Across ideological lines.  By very large majority.  And, of course, the Supremes agree.
          I didn’t assert you support affirmative action.  Your Collective generally does.
          WTF are you blathering about WRT “tax base”?

    • It is fairly simple Cap. All early voter periods are arbitrary. Most objective observers would be hard pressed, however, to find a 35 day in-person voting period that covers 5 weekends prior to the election to be “inadequate” or somehow disenfranchising.

      The point, however, is that it has also been determined that one of the reasons for military disenfranchisment had been inadequate time, because of their duty, to vote in-person. So Ohio has acted upon that by giving them an extra 3 days.

      If we determine that whatever arbitrary time is adequate for early civilian voting is “x” then, per the cite, the military should get x + y, in this case y being 3 days (or whatever is determined to be adequate to ensure the military has the necessary time to vote).

      If the determination is made to change x, then it should also add the y factor to the new equation. But this doesn’t. Therefore the military is left in the same position it was before – inadequate time (per the cite, civilian early voting time frames are inadequate to the needs of the military voter) to vote given their duty. In effect, this lawsuit attempts to eliminate y, by making x the standard for all.

      Why isn’t the Obama campaign arguing for a 38 day voting period plus 3 days, perhaps on the front end, for the military?

  • Really not so surprising since Ohio is shaping up to be a big battle ground state.  I look for Obama and the dems to do more and far worse.

    No wonder they are fighting so hard to defeat voter ID laws nation wide.

  • I don’t know the details of this action—all I know is the righty slant that I’ve read in this article. But I do know about the Republican effort to disenfranchise millions of voters through requiring certain kinds of ID’s in order to vote—for partisan reasons. http://www.pensitoreview.com/2012/08/01/new-study-links-support-for-voter-id-law-to-racial-resentment/
    This story seems to me to be aimed at deflecting any possible guilt that may exist in the right-wing mind for their party’s attempt a limiting people’s right to vote.

    • You mean the same kind of ID the government requires to enter a Federal Building now Tad?   Or the same kind of document that the Democratic party requires to get into it’s speeches or it’s convention?   Those ID’s Tad?

      The same ID’s needed to cash a check, or buy alcohol?   Those ID’s Tad?

      Millions of (dead, ineligible, already voted, pet) voters.

    • “But I do know about the Republican effort to disenfranchise millions of voters through requiring certain kinds of ID’s in order to vote—for partisan reasons.”

      Those millions need a picture ID to apply for food stamps, enter a stadium to see Obama, enter a Federal building and 10′s of other things.  I think it’s obvious you lefties don’t want picture ID’s so ACORN can continue to register people who are not legally able to vote or dead.

      • “I think it’s obvious you lefties don’t want picture ID’s so ACORN can continue to register people who are not legally able to vote or dead.”

        Registering a non-existent voter results in a non-existent vote.

        There are virtually no cases where a person was found to have voted in person under a false ID. There are however, thousands and thousands of cases where people sent in fraudulent absentee ballots, and yet, few of the “voter ID laws” address absentee ballots at all.

        Follow the logic, if absentee balloting is where the fraud happens, and a group claims to want to eliminate fraud but does not address absentee balloting, the action they take is not about fraud but about politics.

        If people without state ID’s don’t vote for your party, it makes sense for that party to want to reduce the number of people without state ID’s who vote. That is what motivates the voter ID laws and if you think otherwise, you are giving politicians and election strategists WAY too much credit for integrity.

        • There are virtually no cases where a person was found to have voted in person under a false ID.

          I call bullshit.  Support that.  And I DO note your greasy “under a false ID”.

        • “There are virtually no cases where a person was found to have voted in person under a false ID.”
          So, it’s your contention that a voter, not required to show any id couldn’t have already voted in place of a recently deceased person and no one would be any the wiser?

          Even though we know that state voter lists have a percentage of dead and ineligible voters on them (which Florida just got pissy over…)

          Exactly how do you catch a person voting in someone else’s place when no ID is required Cap?   Special magic?

          • I think it is good and necessary that you all should be like the rest of the Western world, specially us Scandinavians, and do what we do and require positive identification at the polling booth. Which must make us all raving racist rightwingers, even the socialists.

        • “Registering a non-existent voter results in a non-existent vote.”


          That’s a big pile of horse apples.  In fact one of my now deceased Uncle’s lived in Chicago for 50 – 60 years, the dem aldermen and neighborhood party bosses paid out money by the bag full.  They would drive around and vote in as many precincts as they could get in before the polls closed.

          Also if you register a dead person and then vote in that persons name the vote counts.  Unless it is caught before the vote has been certified.  http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Dead_people_voting
          http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72830.html
          http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2012/05/16/53000-dead-voters-found-in-florida/
          http://www.news-journalonline.com/opinion/editorials/other-voices/2012/08/02/let-felons-dogs-dead-people-vote.html

          • And since SOME states are reluctant to even validate signatures, well, it just costs too much to validate ALL those votes….we’ll do a select sample…..like this one, with the chad not punched….what do you suppose was the voter’s intent here?

            He VOTED FOR GORE!   YOU STOLE THE ELECTION!

    • Taddy, look up the REALITY of Georgia and Indiana voter ID laws on participation.  You’ve been punked by the Moonbattery.  Again.  Some more.
      When did you last rent a van to gather up the puuuuuurrrr people who needed to get their voter ID, but had no transport?
      Heard about the NAALCP doing that?  They used to do things of that kind…when they were relevant and more than an organ of the Collective.

  • Your article is a lie. The lawsuit seeks to restore the same 3 days to all voters, not take it away from veterans, Here’s a hint for the future: Breitbart is staffed by shameless propagandists.

    • It’s not a lie … the point was the military needs MORE time than civilian voters. The Obama claim is 35 days will disenfranchise civilians and is inadequate. 38 days, they argue, is adequate. If that’s the case then 38 days is INADEQUATE for the military. So why isn’t the Obama campaign trying to get them 3 days on the front of the early voting period?

    • The only “shameless propagandists” in this thread is You (aka NOT LIKELY)!!!!

  • Once upon a time there was only ONE day to cast your vote. And there were no complaints. How on earth did our republic survive?

    • And with the exception of people LEGITIMATELY traveling, and the troops, I think we ought to go BACK to that.   This ‘early voting’ shit is just another way to money with the results.

      (if you live in Dallas, and have to drive 50 miles to Fort Worth to work on election day, you don’t get to vote early, that ain’t TRAVELIN, that’s just ‘over yonder’).