n a double blow to the Republicans on the final day of campaigning in the presidential race, two federal judges today barred challengers representing any political party from polling places in Ohio during Tuesday’s election.
United States District Judge Susan J. Dlott in Cincinnati found that the application of Ohio’s statute allowing challengers at polling places was unconstitutional and that allowing any candidates other than election judges and other electors into the polling place would place “an undue burden upon voters” and impede their rights to vote.
Well, I guess this lawsuit confirms which political party will be trying to cheat in Ohio to steal an election. The one that doesn’t want anyone to see what they are doing.
It’s also good to see that the Democratic litigation position regarding HAVA confirms once and for all that their voters are much more likely to be too dumb to find their precinct.
Liberals are a dying breed, C. Recent studies put their number at about 17% of the voting population, with Conservatives gaining numbers to 34%. The desperation of the Liberal tactics this election has been clearly shown throughout the year. Why is that Dems, and liberals in particular, think that they have the particular right to do or say anything, to cheat and lie and slander, in order to ensure that their guy gets into office?
I tell you, it’s the last spasm of the moral relativism and bankrupt ideology of their 60’s-leaning thought processes. And it STILL won’t work, even in Ohio. Actually, the state’s not as close as some would like to believe. And like you say, no one has yet shown that all of the supposed “thousands and thousands of newly-registered voters” are really going to either show up the polls to vote, or vote for the party that sent out workers to register them.
Count on the Dems to fire up the Republican base even more. I guarantee that if any were thinking of staying home and not voting, this is sure to give them an added incentive to go vote. And if the Reeps show up in even normal numbers, the Dems are going to be able to overcome the structural advantage that Bush has in the state.
It’ll be close, but Ohio will still go for Bush by about 2 percentage points. Of course, that won’t preclude the screeching and wailing, and the inevitable court challenges by the Dems.
Good. I see no reason why a voter who enters a polling place with a legitimate voter registration card and appropriate identification should have to endure questions from “challengers” about who they are and where they live. If one of those clowns got in my face, they’d get a good stiff arm in the chest as I shoved them out of my way into the voting booth.
I hope that the stories of dead people voting, etc, are not true. It seems likely that some people won’t be able to vote because they can’t present a voter registration card with a matching address on their driver’s license or identification card. I don’t have a problem with these people having to file provisional ballots or being questioned.
It’s also good to see that the Democratic litigation position regarding HAVA confirms once and for all that their voters are much more likely to be too dumb to find their precinct.
Speaking of dumb, did you read the recent study that showed that some 75% of Republicans believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, versus only about 33% of Democrats?
As for cheating in Ohio, here’s what the judges involved in the two cases had to say:
Judge Adams said in his finding: "In light of these extraordinary circumstances, the contentious nature of the imminent election, the court cannot and must not turn a blind eye to the substantial likelihood that significant harm will result not only to voters, but also to the voting process itself, if appointed challengers are permitted at the polls.‘’
Judge Dlott said that the evidence did not indicate that the presence of additional challengers "would serve Ohio’s interest in preventing voter fraud better than would the system of election judges.‘’
Are you saying that both these judges are in cahoots with the Democratic party? Maybe, just maybe, the Republican case was judged to be insufficient to warrant the “poll watchers” they wanted.
Oh, Judge Adams was appointed in January, 2002. You do the math.
Why is that Dems, and liberals in particular, think that they have the particular right to do or say anything, to cheat and lie and slander, in order to ensure that their guy gets into office?
So you have no problem with the Republican party (or any party) putting challengers in any polling place, with some heretofore unknown power to challenge any voter they choose? You don’t think that smacks of intimidation?
Both judges in these cases (one a Bush appointee) determined that the existing system will handle challenging suspect voters as well as or better than what was proposed by the Republican part. This was a legal decision.
I have a quote for you who use the term “liberal” as some sort of slander:
" As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all
those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally
entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America
among the foremost nations of justice and liberality. "
for kicks, suppose 1 of 10 ohio dems is fraudalently registered or in some way not qualified to vote. repub pollsters hang out and accost 10 of 10 potential dem voters heading into the voting booth, demanding to see id’s, proof of address, etc. they are able to discover the illegally registered voter, but those 9 remaining still exercise their civic duty to vote, but after leaving they each tell 10 of their friends about the problems they had voting legally. 3 out of each of those 10 decide it’s not worth the hassle because lines are backing up now with the repub overseers and they just don’t want to deal with the mess. so now, that’s 27 ballots(9 people tell 10 friends, 3 out of 10 decide it’s not worth it, multiplied by 9) that, theoretically, are no longer going to be cast because of repub tactics.
but thank goodness they stopped that 1% from illegally voting(which the people running the polling station should have done as part of their job).
“and it’s a sure sign that the democrats are in decline when they can put up a lackluster candidate and still be competitive.”
I think they just wanted to make the election interesting and give the “liberal” media something to cover… We all know that Tibbs could run and beat Bush.
Agreed. I voted for Dean at the primary (though it was already a lost cause) because at least the guy had some spunk.
If we only had another Clinton-esque candidate, I could take off all my “Buck Fush”, “Bush is a Moron” and “You Are All Sheep” bumper stickers, relax in my recliner, pay more taxes and know victory was coming.
But, reality is:
…that people voted for Gore. In fact, more people voted for Gore than for Bush.
… I don’t think many people that voted for Gore are going to vote for W this time.
… I think a lot of people that voted for Bush last time are going to vote for JFK.
“they are able to discover the illegally registered voter, but those 9 remaining still exercise their civic duty to vote, but after leaving they each tell 10 of their friends about the problems they had voting legally. 3 out of each of those 10 decide it’s not worth the hassle because lines are backing up now with the repub overseers and they just don’t want to deal with the mess. so now, that’s 27 ballots(9 people tell 10 friends, 3 out of 10 decide it’s not worth it, multiplied by 9) that, theoretically, are no longer going to be cast because of repub tactics.”
Voting is serious business. If it takes that little to dissuade them, they weren’t very serious about voting.
“but thank goodness they stopped that 1% from illegally voting(which the people running the polling station should have done as part of their job).”
SHOULD is the operative word. Except that for some MIND-BOGGLING reason, no proof of residency or ID is required either to register or to vote. WTF?
maybe. but i wouldn’t want to deal with someone that had absolutely no business being there accosting me as i tried to vote. and i do think that the presence of republican pollsters(or any parties pollsters) would have greater negative impact than potential fraudalent voting.
my feeling is that had pollsters been allowed to show, that some would have been perfectly civil and would only speak up if there was an obvious problem. i also think there would be some that would have treated potential voters as scabs crossing a picket line…
We all have business in ensuring that only those registered to vote actually vote.
Voter fraud is a significant problem in large cities where one political party predominates.
I think that we should all be required to show a valid, government issued, identification such as a driver’s license or passport, before being able to cast a vote. If you have to show ID to pay by check, why shouldn’t you have to show ID to vote?
i don’t see it as a problem that someone should be required to show an id or a valid voter registration card to one of the people working at the voting booths. that should be sop. however, if that person is doing his/her job, there is no call to have people affiliated with either party hanging around as oversight. hell, call in the u.n. if you need to but not partisans…
Why would you want to call in representatives of third world dictatorships (i.e., the United Nations) instead of having Americans watch elections to make sure they are conducted fairly? I certainly have an interest as a voter and as an American citizen in the outcome of this election. Foreign nations, too, have an interest in the outcome of the election. My interest is legitimate, and so is my participation in the election. It used to be that all Americans would tell foreign countries to shove it like when the French tried to influence the outcome of the 1796 election. That one political party actually wants to get the same people that ran the Oil for Lining the Pockets of Kofi Anon’s son, I mean the Oil for Food Program, to “monitor” our election is mind boggling.
i’d prefer to leave it up to the people working the polling stations. but i most assuredly do not want repubs or dems adding a layer of oversight. at least monitoring elections is part of the u.n.'s job. can’t say that about the dnc or the rnc–their job is to win elections.
if more monitoring was required, i’d definitely go with a group like the u.n. over someone with “direct” skin in the game…
What I’m hoping tomorrow is that people waiting in line to vote run these characters out of the precinct. But, of course, I’m sure some of my fellow Americans will sniffle and tear-up in front of some cameraman and reporter, and that’s what’ll play on the news that night.
A little bit of info on the judge who heard the Ohio case dealing with poll watchers:
Judge Dlott thus substituted her opinion for that of the Ohio legislature, which has enacted statutes that provide for poll watchers.
“Critics have dubbed U.S. District Judge Susan Dlott an unabashed liberal who only snagged an appointment from Clinton in 1995 after her husband, Stan Chesley, raised millions for the Democratic Party,” the Cincinnati Enquirer reported back in February 2002.
The Cincinnati Enquirer described Dlott as “sometimes eccentric, often unconventional” and noted that on her bookshelf were photos of Bill and Hillary Clinton and Al Gore. We suspect that today that shelf includes a photo of John Kerry.
Dlott made it clear in her interview with the Enquirer that she didn’t care what people thought about her biased decrees. “And besides, she says, people are stuck because her appointment is for life.”
Dlott’s husband, Stan Chesley, is a plaintiff’s lawyer. But that’s like saying that Arnold Schwarzenegger used to work out in the gym. Chesley has made untold millions through class action lawsuits. His lavish lifestyle (as well as Judge Dlott’s) depends on the Democratic Party blocking tort reform. Hence, he raises millions for the Democratic Party. The photo below is of Chesley and Dlott’s house.
Fair and balanced, baby. I report, you decide (hee-hee) Hey…it’s the day before the Big Vote. I can play hardball just like my boy Chris Matthews!!! Chris is in da’ house!!! Yeah!!!
n a double blow to the Republicans on the final day of campaigning in the presidential race, two federal judges today barred challengers representing any political party from polling places in Ohio during Tuesday’s election.
