Animatronik: More interesting is that the Democrats are opposed to repealing the law because they want the referendum to be a political issue in the fall.

Welcome to 21st century America, where pols are so focused on winning elections that they'll secretly support controversy they can run against.

I'm pretty certain the Republicans made it a political issue when they passed voter suppression legislation on a party line vote. And they now want to repeal it so they don't have to face the direct wrath of the voters in November. But keep telling yourself both sides are bad.

Where's the obvious tag?

Animatronik: More interesting is that the Democrats are opposed to repealing the law because they want the referendum to be a political issue in the fall.

Welcome to 21st century America, where pols are so focused on winning elections that they'll secretly support controversy they can run against.

Yes. Because we have:
1. A completely Republican-controlled state government that passed this bill which
2. reduces the number of days of pre-election day voting
3. restricts the hours a county board of elections can be open for pre-election day voting and
4. limits the ability of a county to inform citizens about absentee ballots.
5. Then, that Republican-controlled state government found that the citizens hate it so much that they've put it up for a vote of the people.
6. This leads the (Republican) secretary of state to announce a dubious plan to repeal the law...
7. ...not so that the law is gotten rid of, but so that the Republican-controlled state government can make tiny changes and then pass it again under a different number
8. and because he's afraid that if Ohio voters are asked to vote "Yes or no?" to "Do you like this Republican-passed bill to limit the ability and opportunity for Ohio citizens to vote?", they might react against Republicans.
9. The (Republican) state senate president and the (Republican) state house speaker tell him to fark off for various reasons.
10. A Democratic state senator expresses his desire to let the process run its course and let the citizens spend a second straight November overturning ridiculous overreaches by the Republican-controlled state government.

Clearly, the most interesting thing out of that, the only interesting thing, is #10.

These issues, just like in Wisconsin, are going to force a huge Democratic turnout on election day.

/watch as Obama wins his 2nd term because of Ohio

To borrow from one of the commenters in TFA:

"Agreed. But also to save face. The secretary of state also knows that it will be a presidential election year and with this referendum [to repeal the Republican overreach on voting rights restrictions] and a potential right to work referendum on the ballot, he knows what is going to happen. This all about self preservation and to protect those republicans who are up for election. He also knows this will be a sure way that President Obama will get reelected again"

In other words, Democrats were going to get their base fired up over the referendum, and it would hurt Republicans chances in the state.

Best damn democracy money can buy...

Cataholic: Would be interesting if he had actually said that.

"It's not the appearance on the ballot that bothers me. It's the campaign surrounding it. It's likely to be misused by people for their own political ends to confuse voters about what the rules are for the election."

He thinks it is the campaign that will be misused..not the law.

Pretty much. Folks will be incensed by the limitation of their franchise to vote, and that could blow back on folks who supported it. Not the fundamental question of why folks are looking to limit the franchise...

Cataholic: Would be interesting if he had actually said that.

"It's not the appearance on the ballot that bothers me. It's the campaign surrounding it. It's likely to be misused by people for their own political ends to confuse voters about what the rules are for the election."

He thinks it is the campaign that will be misused..not the law.


In a sense he's right. Manipulating and confusing people for political gain is not a "misuse" of this law, it's the whole point of it.

Cataholic: Would be interesting if he had actually said that.

"It's not the appearance on the ballot that bothers me. It's the campaign surrounding it. It's likely to be misused by people for their own political ends to confuse voters about what the rules are for the election."

He thinks it is the campaign that will be misused..not the law.

Difficult to say. I can't tell for certain what the antecedent of the bolded "It's" is, the law or the campaign against the law.

Cinaed: This is what a politician 'should' be, looking out for their constituents, not farking around.

Ummm.. I think he's looking out for himself instead of the people.

trotsky: What the fark happened to the Ohio GOP? I never remember them being this scummy until 2010.