pageok
pageok
pageok
Sixth Circuit Sides with Ohio SoS; Vacates Injunction:

Last night, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 2-1, vacated the district court's injunction requiring Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner to make efforts to verify voter registration information. The Columbus Dispatch reports:

The three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Brunner is not required to provide county elections boards with the names of voters whose personal information does not match state motor-vehicle or federal Social Security records, as ordered Thursday by U.S. District Court Judge George C. Smith of Columbus.

Brunner had sought an emergency order delaying Smith's order, and the appeals court agreed with Brunner that federal law does not require her to provide the names and that the Nov. 4 election is too close for major policy changes.

The panel noted that the process of matching voter information with state and federal records has been in place since 2007, and that the details about mismatches are available to counties on individual voter records, even if not in one list. . . .

Judge Richard Allen Griffin dissented, saying the three-judge panel should not have acted so quickly and that Brunner's "lack of concern for the integrity of the elections process is astounding and deeply disturbing."

More here.

J. Aldridge:
Frankly, federal courts have no business getting involved in these sort of cases. Jurisdiction is limited to when there is some act of State Authority to deny access to a ballot due to gender, age or race. Election regulation or voter qualifications has always been within the exclusive domain of each state.
10.11.2008 10:57am
J. Aldridge:

The State of Virginia the moment she is admitted into the Union can by her Legislature, and in perfect consistence with her constitution, propose such an amendment to her local constitution as shall in effect disfranchise nine hundred and ninety-nine out of a thousand of the colored population of that State, by imposing a property qualification upon them, and it would be no violation of the Fifteenth Amendment. …

The States have exercised the power of controlling, regulating, and restricting popular suffrage from the commencement of the State governments down to the present time. It is one of the rights reserved to the States, and is to be exercised in its fullness and in its plenitude without any control on the part of Congress or any question being put by Congress to them.

--Sen. Jacob M. Howard
10.11.2008 11:00am
Big E:
Prof Post
You need to close the tag.
10.11.2008 11:33am
Sagar (mail):
no wonder our trust in the electoral process is diminishing.
10.11.2008 11:38am
J Richardson:
Crap like this which makes a mockery of one man (person), one vote makes me almost long for the days of poll taxes and literacy tests.
10.11.2008 11:55am
Bryan Price (mail) (www):
disfranchise nine hundred and ninety-nine out of a thousand of the colored population of that State


Replace colored with white and what kind of reaction would you get? Catholic?

And I'm not sure what the problem is, as it was a federal court that the appeals struck down. Is the complaint that the appeals court shouldn't have struck down the US District Court's ruling, or this is a correction of it?
10.11.2008 12:09pm
The McGehee (mail) (www):
Jonathan, please close that italics tag; it's messing up the whole front page.
10.11.2008 12:48pm
Assistant Village Idiot (mail) (www):
So everyone has a defensible reason for doing what is in their partisan interest.

Wouldn't it be great to have a sci-fi alternate universe where the situations were reversed and we could grade people over time how principle-consistent they were between the two worlds? Would any of us score much above zero?
10.11.2008 1:04pm
David Warner:
Assistant Village Idiot,

"Wouldn't it be great to have a sci-fi alternate universe where the situations were reversed and we could grade people over time how principle-consistent they were between the two worlds? Would any of us score much above zero?"

At least we wouldn't have to worry much about hobgoblins...
10.11.2008 2:19pm
Norman Bates (mail):
Bryan Price

And I'm not sure what the problem is, as it was a federal court that the appeals struck down. Is the complaint that the appeals court shouldn't have struck down the US District Court's ruling, or this is a correction of it?
As the minority opinion notes, it was in fact a panel of a federal appeals court that voided the injunction and did so in violation of that federal appeals court's own rules of procedure. I would be surprised if we don't wind up with an en banc ruling that will sustain the injunction and the requested relief.

I would also not be the least little bit surprised to find that the two majority judges on the panel were Democrat appointees, although I do not know this for a fact.
10.11.2008 2:27pm
Oren:


I would also not be the least little bit surprised to find that the two majority judges on the panel were Democrat appointees, although I do not know this for a fact.

You also can't be bothered to do the least bit of actual research on the matter.
10.11.2008 4:49pm
M:
I can't find a link to the opinion -- I swear I looked. Anyone have it?
10.11.2008 6:32pm
M:
Never mind. Found it. It was written by Moore. No wonder. She is notorious.
10.11.2008 8:03pm
The Drill SGT:
Majority opinon from Judge Moore, Radcliffe BA, Harvard JD, Clinton judge
Senior Judge Myron Bright concurs, UMn BA, UMn JD, LBJ Judge, aged 89
10.11.2008 8:14pm
U.Va. Grad:
Was Bright sitting by designation? He's an 8th Cir. judge who has chambers in Fargo.
10.11.2008 8:38pm
Bryan Price (mail) (www):
J. Aldridge
Frankly, federal courts have no business getting involved in these sort of cases.


Norman Bates

I guess you thought I was talking about the minor opinion, when I was talking about the nattering here.
10.11.2008 10:44pm
jccamp (mail):
U Va -

Yes, by designation.

J Aldridge -

This was a contention re: a very narrow requirement under 42 USC 15483, the "Help America Vote Act' (HAVA), that the state(s) had to put in place a manner of comparing voter records with Motor Vehicle Department records. Ohio's S of S claimed that she complied with HAVA, and such a system existed. Plaintiffs argued that although the system comparing both data bases existed, there was no real manner of differentiating those records which showed a discrepancy (between voter registration and motor vehicle bureau records).
10.11.2008 10:45pm
Ohio Scrivener (mail):
That was a very favorable panel for the Ohio Secretary of State. My prediction is that if this case gets taken up by entire Sixth Circuit the 2-1 decision gets reversed.
10.11.2008 11:19pm
Norman Bates (mail):
Oren

You also can't be bothered to do the least bit of actual research on the matter.
Myron Bright--appointed by LBJ;
Marion Moore--appointed by Willy Clinton (and notorious moonbat liberal) [My thanks to The Drill Sergeant for supplying the judges' names]

Research really isn't necessary in cases like this. I started with the thoroughly verified premise that Demmocrat-appointed judges regard the courts as a mechanism for undemocratically imposing their policies and fellow-travelers on the public. I applied it to this case to predict the party affiliations of the judges who violated circuit court procedures to achieve their desired ends. My predictions were correct adding further empirical credence to my initial hypothesis.
10.12.2008 12:02pm
Norman Bates (mail):
Oren:

I also expect that my other prediction, that an an en banc hearing by the Sixth Circuit will reverse this politically motivated Bright-Moore machination, will be verified in the next few days. Final Score -- Democrat Party: 0; The People of Ohio: 1.
10.12.2008 12:07pm
Ken Hahn (mail):
Again the federal courts have decided that vote fraud is legal and proper so long as it is done to benefit Democrats. These judges should be impeached and removed from office. Our federal judiciary is rotten to the core and the political branches have done nothing to bring it under control.

I hope the 6th Circuit reverses this idiocy but I have little confidence that any judge or group of judges can be trusted to pay the slightest attention to the Constitution or any law that limits their power to dictate policy from the bench.
10.12.2008 7:40pm