If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AlterNet)   Starting Monday, provisional ballots in Ohio will be located in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'   (alternet.org) divider line 201
    More: Scary, provisional ballots, Ohio, critical state, John G. W. Husted, Jr., election officials, impacts, glass, secretary of states  
•       •       •

3054 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Nov 2012 at 8:05 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



201 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-03 09:09:10 PM

skullkrusher: DamnYankees: skullkrusher: isn't this form new to the directive? How will it impact previously cast votes?

Who said it will cast previously cast votes? Nothing in his post indicated that.

I am trying to figure out the issue here. Seriously, this is the GOP rigging the election in Ohio? By making someone check out a box on their form if and only if they chose not to fill in their last 4 digits of their SSN or their license ID? That there is going to be some confusion about checking a farking box and this confusion will have the impact of rigging the election for the GOP?


He also started requiring this 3 days before voting ends, when early voting (including provisionals) have been happening since October 2nd. His last minute ruling would cause thousands of otherwise legimate votes to be thrown out.
 
2012-11-03 09:10:07 PM

dustman81: skullkrusher: DamnYankees: skullkrusher: isn't this form new to the directive? How will it impact previously cast votes?

Who said it will cast previously cast votes? Nothing in his post indicated that.

I am trying to figure out the issue here. Seriously, this is the GOP rigging the election in Ohio? By making someone check out a box on their form if and only if they chose not to fill in their last 4 digits of their SSN or their license ID? That there is going to be some confusion about checking a farking box and this confusion will have the impact of rigging the election for the GOP?

He also started requiring this 3 days before voting ends, when early voting (including provisionals) have been happening since October 2nd. His last minute ruling would cause thousands of otherwise legimate votes to be thrown out.


And that early voting has been heavily in Obama's favor.
 
2012-11-03 09:12:17 PM

dustman81: He also started requiring this 3 days before voting ends, when early voting (including provisionals) have been happening since October 2nd. His last minute ruling would cause thousands of otherwise legimate votes to be thrown out.


so that's the concern? That people who didn't correctly form out their provisional ballots specifying how they proved their identity won't have their votes counted? Why the hell wasn't this the policy all along?
 
2012-11-03 09:12:19 PM
Let's see, possible ways to invalidate:

1. Long shot but since I dealt with this at work last week: Newlywed. Had a new license with her new last name. Hadn't updated her social security card yet. So the last 4 digits wouldn't match her name necessarily. Invalid, probably.

2. "ONE". If you write your last 4 SSN # down and for good measure also write in your driver's license, is that invalid? Technically, you did too much.

3. It's essentially an Election ID law, especially since people who are going to be required to fill out provisional ballots are far, far more likely to be the *exact* same demographics Republicans have been working SO F--KING HARD to disenfranchise already.

4. Election workers aren't allowed to help people fill out the form? COME ON. That's just f--king blatant right there. It's not a goddamn ballot. The newlywed I mentioned can't ask a worker if her recent name change but admittedly belated trip to the SSA will make a difference?

5. What if someone has an expired license? Even if it was issued to that person, and even if I doubt the state repeats numbers, would that invalidate it? What if they don't drive anymore and haven't had to show non-expired ID since it expired and they just didn't notice? (Read: Elderly and Poor, two groups that probably haven't had to give IDs for an I-9, who probably don't get IDed if they buy a bottle of wine, who probably can't afford to pay to renew a license or to even get to the office to do so - and if they don't need it, why spend the money, etc.)

And most importantly,

DamnYankees: This is a pointless roadblock who's only reasonable purpose is to disenfranchise voters. Whether you think its really easy to overcome really isn't the issue - would you be ok with a law that said you can only vote if you do 5 jumping jacks first, or sign an affivadit saying you are physically unable to do so? I mean, that would be EASY to comply with, but I hope you'd agree its farking insane and the only possible reason for it is to prevent people from voting who, for whatever reason, can't comply.


THIS

/I f--king hate you, Ohio
//not the people in Ohio trying to fight this crap, but... I still hate Ohio as a whole
///so goddamn much
 
2012-11-03 09:12:26 PM

skullkrusher: L Ron Hubbard's Last Fart: This form is NOT new to the directive. Every voter who cast a provisional ballot is required to sign this form. In previous years I had cast a ballot provisionally and signed a form very much like this one.

so what is the impact of the directive then? That if a ballot is not properly filled out then the ballot will not be counted?


The impact of the ruling is that voters who cast a vote provisionally will be disenfranchised if the poll workers follow the law.

L Ron Hubbard's Last Fart: With this new rule, any ballot that has already been cast provisionally will be rejected

this is what you were looking for, DamnYankees? How will this rule cause all ballots that have already been cast to be rejected?


Because, according to this rule, the provisional ballots were cast in accordance with the laws but not in accordance to his rule, therefore the ballots will not be counted.
 
2012-11-03 09:13:27 PM
"The directive, issued Friday, lays out the requirements for submitting a provisional ballot. The directive includes a form which puts the burden on the voter to correctly record the form of ID provided to election officials. Husted also instructed election officials that if the form is not filled out correctly by a voter, the ballot should not be counted. "

sounds like this form is new to this directive and if this form is not completed correctly, it will not be counted. This is an outrage?
 
2012-11-03 09:15:43 PM
It's always suspicious when Republicans are openly in favor of additional regulation.
 
2012-11-03 09:15:55 PM

skullkrusher: sounds like this form is new to this directive and if this form is not completed correctly, it will not be counted. This is an outrage?


Well, here's the question. Is this directive applied to ALL ballots cast provisionally, or just those from here-on-out? (If just those from here-on-out, how are they supposed to be able to tell which were cast previously and which weren't?)
 
2012-11-03 09:16:00 PM

L Ron Hubbard's Last Fart: Because, according to this rule, the provisional ballots were cast in accordance with the laws but not in accordance to his rule, therefore the ballots will not be counted.


The law requires this box to be filled out if SSN or Driver ID is not provided.

"the appropriate local election official shall record the type of identification provided, the social security number information, the fact that the affirmation was executed, or the fact that the individual declined to execute such an affirmation and include that information with the transmission of the ballot . . . ."

if a vote has already been cast, then who is to say who checked the box?

I don't know what I am missing here. Seriously, how is anyone going to be disenfranchised by this unless they are unable to fill out a ballot?
 
2012-11-03 09:16:15 PM

DamnYankees: because lots of people simply dont know their SS numbers


Ok, I was with you guys with the "lots of people don't have id's" thing even though I've neve met one despite decades working with the public. But this, this is BS. Who the fark doesn't know their SSN? My 12 year old knows hers for God's sake.
 
2012-11-03 09:17:27 PM

Anderson's Pooper: Ok, I was with you guys with the "lots of people don't have id's" thing even though I've neve met one despite decades working with the public. But this, this is BS.


I didnt know my SS number by heart until I was in my mid-20s. I always had to call my parents who had it written down.
 
2012-11-03 09:18:21 PM

Felgraf: skullkrusher: sounds like this form is new to this directive and if this form is not completed correctly, it will not be counted. This is an outrage?

Well, here's the question. Is this directive applied to ALL ballots cast provisionally, or just those from here-on-out? (If just those from here-on-out, how are they supposed to be able to tell which were cast previously and which weren't?)


seems to be some discrepancy about that.

As I understand it, previously a form had a checkbox which was filled out by a poll worker indicating which form of ID the voter presented.
After this directive (a new form?) has a checkbox which is filled out by the voter to indicate which form of ID the voter presented.

Pre and post directive, the box much have been checked. Presumably if the box was not checked, the ballot was invalid - how could it be otherwise?

I don't see the point of the directive nor the outrage over it
 
2012-11-03 09:18:31 PM

skullkrusher: "The directive, issued Friday, lays out the requirements for submitting a provisional ballot. The directive includes a form which puts the burden on the voter to correctly record the form of ID provided to election officials. Husted also instructed election officials that if the form is not filled out correctly by a voter, the ballot should not be counted. "

sounds like this form is new to this directive and if this form is not completed correctly, it will not be counted. This is an outrage?


It could throw out provisional ballots that have already been cast. How many times do we need to say that?

Also, thus is just the latest in a string of attempted disenfranchisement from Husted. He's gotten smacked by federal judges something like ten times in the past three months.
 
2012-11-03 09:18:54 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Filling out that form is a "burden"?


>in before hanging chads
 
2012-11-03 09:19:27 PM

skullkrusher: L Ron Hubbard's Last Fart: Because, according to this rule, the provisional ballots were cast in accordance with the laws but not in accordance to his rule, therefore the ballots will not be counted.

The law requires this box to be filled out if SSN or Driver ID is not provided.

"the appropriate local election official shall record the type of identification provided, the social security number information, the fact that the affirmation was executed, or the fact that the individual declined to execute such an affirmation and include that information with the transmission of the ballot . . . ."

if a vote has already been cast, then who is to say who checked the box?

I don't know what I am missing here. Seriously, how is anyone going to be disenfranchised by this unless they are unable to fill out a ballot?


He's also in direct violation of state law by having the voter, not the election official, check the ID box. ORC 3505.181(B)(6)
 
2012-11-03 09:19:28 PM
Obama will still win Ohio. All of this voter suppression and other chicanery on the part of the GOP is what they have had to do to almost win. Obama by a nose.
 
2012-11-03 09:22:48 PM

DamnYankees: Anderson's Pooper: Ok, I was with you guys with the "lots of people don't have id's" thing even though I've neve met one despite decades working with the public. But this, this is BS.

I didnt know my SS number by heart until I was in my mid-20s. I always had to call my parents who had it written down.


your mommy should have sewn it into your underwear like she did your name apparently ;)
 
2012-11-03 09:26:07 PM
Didn't RTFA, but let me guess...Rethuglicans are trying to steal the election?
 
2012-11-03 09:26:09 PM
Yeah... no.

While I'd say the measure itself is not unreasonable, the courts have so far consistently held that changes to electoral procedure four months prior to election day (i.e. the voter ID shiat in most states) are invalid because they fail to give voters proper time to adjust. So I'm pretty sure that attempting to change procedure bare days before the start of early voting ain't gonna fly.

So, again... no. Not yours.
 
2012-11-03 09:26:33 PM

LazarusLong42: It could throw out provisional ballots that have already been cast. How many times do we need to say that?


HOW? How can it do that? Prior to this directive they accepted incomplete ballots and counted them? Identifying information was optional? You can say it a billion times but it still isn't gonna make any farking sense

LazarusLong42: Also, thus is just the latest in a string of attempted disenfranchisement from Husted. He's gotten smacked by federal judges something like ten times in the past three months.


I can see attempts to disenfranchise people to help the GOP but is too-stupid-to-fill-out-a-form-correctly a big Democratic bloc? Seems to me that this will disenfrachise people across the political spectrum
 
2012-11-03 09:27:41 PM

vermicious k'nid: Didn't RTFA, but let me guess...Rethuglicans are trying to steal the election?


by disenfranchising painfully stupid people which according to this thread are largely Democrats
 
2012-11-03 09:28:01 PM

DamnYankees: I always had to call my parents who had it written down.


You know you can get a card with it pre-printed for you ; )

I will admit Husted's an ass but I had absolutely no troubles with my early voting in Ohio. Walked in, they asked me if I wanted them to mail me an absentee ballot or if I wanted to fill it out then. I asked for the immediate gratification. Filled out ballot, filled out envelope to seal it in. the last four of my SSN on it and asked them if there was anything else I needed to do. They looked over the envelope, said "No" and I thanked them for their time.

This whole thing is going to come down to local election board people doing right by their neighbors. The people I have dealt with will answer questions and provide assistance despite what "Columbus" says. But maybe that's just a small town thing.
 
2012-11-03 09:28:08 PM

skullkrusher: I don't see the point of the directive nor the outrage over it


I don't see how you DON'T understand this. This is a directive which - in direct violation of state law - requires a voter to fill out a form instead of the election official. The voters, who has no familiarity with the form, is much more likely to make a mistake and tick the wrong box or multiple boxes or whatever, and thereby get their ballot thrown out. The only logic behind this directive is the intention that this confusion will occur and thereby disqualify votes.

If this even disqualifies a single vote, you should be against it and should understand why its dumb as all hell. It's also, again, BLATANTLY illegal.
 
2012-11-03 09:30:14 PM

skullkrusher: LazarusLong42: It could throw out provisional ballots that have already been cast. How many times do we need to say that?

HOW? How can it do that? Prior to this directive they accepted incomplete ballots and counted them? Identifying information was optional? You can say it a billion times but it still isn't gonna make any farking sense

LazarusLong42: Also, thus is just the latest in a string of attempted disenfranchisement from Husted. He's gotten smacked by federal judges something like ten times in the past three months.

I can see attempts to disenfranchise people to help the GOP but is too-stupid-to-fill-out-a-form-correctly a big Democratic bloc? Seems to me that this will disenfrachise people across the political spectrum


And the state law that dictates that the election official is required to record the type of ID? You don't see any problem with him ignoring state law and making his own rules?
 
2012-11-03 09:31:58 PM
Is this a surprise? More voters = worse chances for Republicans. The GOP is clinging to a dying ideology, and they know it.
 
2012-11-03 09:32:06 PM
The current procedure is a compromise. The original process was to have each form signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public inquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters.
 
2012-11-03 09:32:18 PM

Jim_Callahan: Yeah... no.

While I'd say the measure itself is not unreasonable, the courts have so far consistently held that changes to electoral procedure four months prior to election day (i.e. the voter ID shiat in most states) are invalid because they fail to give voters proper time to adjust. So I'm pretty sure that attempting to change procedure bare days before the start of early voting ain't gonna fly.

So, again... no. Not yours.


This wasn't even before early voting began. Early voting has been going on for a month before Husted sent this directive to the Boards of Elections.
 
2012-11-03 09:34:08 PM

Anderson's Pooper: DamnYankees: because lots of people simply dont know their SS numbers

Ok, I was with you guys with the "lots of people don't have id's" thing even though I've neve met one despite decades working with the public. But this, this is BS. Who the fark doesn't know their SSN? My 12 year old knows hers for God's sake.


I didn't know mine til I went to college and it was used as my student ID #.
 
2012-11-03 09:34:08 PM

DamnYankees: I don't see how you DON'T understand this. This is a directive which - in direct violation of state law - requires a voter to fill out a form instead of the election official


no, check a box. The form always had to be filled out by the voter. We're talking about making an 'x' in a little box next to the line which describes the form of ID shown. Seems that this is contrary to state law but the deviance from state law is super meaningful? that's the outrage?

DamnYankees: The voters, who has no familiarity with the form, is much more likely to make a mistake and tick the wrong box or multiple boxes or whatever, and thereby get their ballot thrown out. The only logic behind this directive is the intention that this confusion will occur and thereby disqualify votes.


damn man, this form couldn't be much simpler. I am all for counting everyone's votes but we must make at least some assumptions of competency. What if someone doesn't know their name? Then what do we do?

DamnYankees: If this even disqualifies a single vote, you should be against it and should understand why its dumb as all hell. It's also, again, BLATANTLY illegal.


disenfranchising anyone is bad. I don't see how this is a move to help the GOP, however, and I do not this this places any sort of undue burden on a voter in the slightest. Bringing the ID is far more burdensome than ticking a farking box
 
2012-11-03 09:34:12 PM
I wonder if Republicans will begin throwing Romney under the bus on Monday, or if they'll wait until Tuesday night. In their mind, it's always their candidate who's bad when they lose, not their ridiculous, 50-years-outdated party platform.
 
2012-11-03 09:34:13 PM

skullkrusher: dustman81: He also started requiring this 3 days before voting ends, when early voting (including provisionals) have been happening since October 2nd. His last minute ruling would cause thousands of otherwise legimate votes to be thrown out.

so that's the concern? That people who didn't correctly form out their provisional ballots specifying how they proved their identity won't have their votes counted? Why the hell wasn't this the policy all along?


Well, that's the concern of us thinking people: That it wasn't the policy all along. And that's the issue us thinking people have with ANY of this voter ID/voter fraud nonsense: that it's being applied in a very slapdash, ad hoc manner by assorted officials who often have a very vested interest in whose votes they are discounting. This judge--who in this case conveniently happens to be a Republican--just ensured that thousands of votes which may (or may not) be legitimate, need to be tossed, or at best need to be hand-counted.

Of course, just as many of those votes could be for Romney as for Obama, and likely are. But this has to be seen for what it is, a judicial official attempting to use his power to influence the outcome of the election from the bench. The intelligent, and to me obvious, thing to do, of course, would be for a Federal court to make a bench ruling of their own, which would be that all holdings affecting voter ID laws and vote counting will not apply to ballots cast for the November 2012 national elections. That's a little high-handed, and might make some people angry, but it would remove the immediate cause of all this idiocy. All ballots cast for the November elections, regardless of what rulings have been made since, let's say, July, will be tallied and will count, period. That would be my solution to this madness; but then, I don't care about the politics of the thing.
 
2012-11-03 09:34:51 PM

skullkrusher: by disenfranchising painfully stupid people which according to this thread are largely Democrats


I think the premise is this:

verbal_jizm: early voting has been heavily in Obama's favor.

 
2012-11-03 09:37:14 PM

skullkrusher: no, check a box. The form always had to be filled out by the voter. We're talking about making an 'x' in a little box next to the line which describes the form of ID shown. Seems that this is contrary to state law but the deviance from state law is super meaningful? that's the outrage?


The outrage comes from the context. Don't pretend not to know that. This is part of an ongoing effort by this asshole to disenfranchise voters. Obviously if you don't buy that at all this won't make any difference to you.

skullkrusher: damn man, this form couldn't be much simpler. I am all for counting everyone's votes but we must make at least some assumptions of competency. What if someone doesn't know their name? Then what do we do?


We take it piece by piece. Is knowing your name a basic requirement of determining who can vote? Yes, I think we can all agree it is. Is changing the law so that the voter, rather than the election official, has to identify the form of ID used in voting a basic requirement of determining who can vote? You'd be insane to try to argue that.

skullkrusher: disenfranchising anyone is bad. I don't see how this is a move to help the GOP, however, and I do not this this places any sort of undue burden on a voter in the slightest. Bringing the ID is far more burdensome than ticking a farking box


I dont care if it helps the GOP or the Dems. Everyone should vote. If the GOP wins, so be it. I dont know why you bring this up.
 
2012-11-03 09:37:44 PM

Blue_Blazer: skullkrusher: LazarusLong42: It could throw out provisional ballots that have already been cast. How many times do we need to say that?

HOW? How can it do that? Prior to this directive they accepted incomplete ballots and counted them? Identifying information was optional? You can say it a billion times but it still isn't gonna make any farking sense

LazarusLong42: Also, thus is just the latest in a string of attempted disenfranchisement from Husted. He's gotten smacked by federal judges something like ten times in the past three months.

I can see attempts to disenfranchise people to help the GOP but is too-stupid-to-fill-out-a-form-correctly a big Democratic bloc? Seems to me that this will disenfrachise people across the political spectrum

And the state law that dictates that the election official is required to record the type of ID? You don't see any problem with him ignoring state law and making his own rules?


sure but I am not terribly outraged by it. I do not have deep respect and admiration for Ohio law and if someone does something that is contrary to that law with no apparent negative consequences, I don't give a shiat and have a hard time working up outrage.

Had he passed a directive about showing ID at the polls to vote 4 days ahead of time, yeah, I'd join the outrage parade. Checking a box? Perhaps I just don't know anyone who is stupid enough to be impacted by that and therefore cannot imagine it being an issue
 
2012-11-03 09:39:24 PM

skullkrusher: Blue_Blazer: skullkrusher: LazarusLong42: It could throw out provisional ballots that have already been cast. How many times do we need to say that?

HOW? How can it do that? Prior to this directive they accepted incomplete ballots and counted them? Identifying information was optional? You can say it a billion times but it still isn't gonna make any farking sense

LazarusLong42: Also, thus is just the latest in a string of attempted disenfranchisement from Husted. He's gotten smacked by federal judges something like ten times in the past three months.

I can see attempts to disenfranchise people to help the GOP but is too-stupid-to-fill-out-a-form-correctly a big Democratic bloc? Seems to me that this will disenfrachise people across the political spectrum

And the state law that dictates that the election official is required to record the type of ID? You don't see any problem with him ignoring state law and making his own rules?

sure but I am not terribly outraged by it. I do not have deep respect and admiration for Ohio law and if someone does something that is contrary to that law with no apparent negative consequences, I don't give a shiat and have a hard time working up outrage.

Had he passed a directive about showing ID at the polls to vote 4 days ahead of time, yeah, I'd join the outrage parade. Checking a box? Perhaps I just don't know anyone who is stupid enough to be impacted by that and therefore cannot imagine it being an issue


People you can barely read? People who don't read English?
 
2012-11-03 09:40:33 PM

Blue_Blazer: skullkrusher: Blue_Blazer: skullkrusher: LazarusLong42:
People who can barely read? People who can't read English?


FTFM
 
2012-11-03 09:40:40 PM
It will certainly be an interesting situation to follow. How many of these will be invalidated for this reason? When were those votes cast? What instructions did the election worker give to the voters regarding completion of that part of the form?
 
2012-11-03 09:41:07 PM
Great headline. You can't lose with the classics.
 
2012-11-03 09:41:50 PM

Gyrfalcon: skullkrusher: dustman81: He also started requiring this 3 days before voting ends, when early voting (including provisionals) have been happening since October 2nd. His last minute ruling would cause thousands of otherwise legimate votes to be thrown out.

so that's the concern? That people who didn't correctly form out their provisional ballots specifying how they proved their identity won't have their votes counted? Why the hell wasn't this the policy all along?

Well, that's the concern of us thinking people: That it wasn't the policy all along. And that's the issue us thinking people have with ANY of this voter ID/voter fraud nonsense: that it's being applied in a very slapdash, ad hoc manner by assorted officials who often have a very vested interest in whose votes they are discounting. This judge--who in this case conveniently happens to be a Republican--just ensured that thousands of votes which may (or may not) be legitimate, need to be tossed, or at best need to be hand-counted.

Of course, just as many of those votes could be for Romney as for Obama, and likely are. But this has to be seen for what it is, a judicial official attempting to use his power to influence the outcome of the election from the bench. The intelligent, and to me obvious, thing to do, of course, would be for a Federal court to make a bench ruling of their own, which would be that all holdings affecting voter ID laws and vote counting will not apply to ballots cast for the November 2012 national elections. That's a little high-handed, and might make some people angry, but it would remove the immediate cause of all this idiocy. All ballots cast for the November elections, regardless of what rulings have been made since, let's say, July, will be tallied and will count, period. That would be my solution to this madness; but then, I don't care about the politics of the thing.


Dude, it's the Sec of State that's doing this, not the judge. The judge is the one that will almost certainly kick the Sec of State in the balls for trying this, just like the last several times he's tried it.
 
2012-11-03 09:42:21 PM

Blue_Blazer: People who don't read English?


How'd they pass the citizenship test then?


/Feeling very snarky today
//Don't take it seriously
 
2012-11-03 09:42:33 PM

Somacandra: That's what you get when your Secretary of State is a Vogon. 

Be thankful they aren't protected by an Improbability Drive, but just a Somebody Else's Problem field.


+1
 
2012-11-03 09:42:48 PM

dustman81: This wasn't even before early voting began. Early voting has been going on for a month before Husted sent this directive to the Boards of Elections.


Did not know that. If you need me, I'll be in the corner slamming my head into the wall until it bleeds, because a facepalm isn't enough.

atomic-age: I didn't know mine til I went to college and it was used as my student ID #.


Your college... oh, Jesus H Christ tapdancing on a farking cracker.

OK, the world is too stupid for me now, someone invent a cheap rocket I can build so I can move to the Moon.

//Anyone who has had either a job or filled out a college application has had their ssn drilled into their head by repetition if nothing else. Generally speaking, everyone is one or the other by age 17 or so.
 
2012-11-03 09:43:42 PM

skullkrusher: "The directive, issued Friday, lays out the requirements for submitting a provisional ballot. The directive includes a form which puts the burden on the voter to correctly record the form of ID provided to election officials. Husted also instructed election officials that if the form is not filled out correctly by a voter, the ballot should not be counted. "

sounds like this form is new to this directive and if this form is not completed correctly, it will not be counted. This is an outrage?


Lemme just repost what someone already quoted earlier in the thread:

Blue_Blazer: I know reading is not exactly something Rapepublicans brag about, but come on, it's right there in TFA:

Ohio Rev. Code § 3505.181(B)(6) provides that, once a voter casting a provisional ballot proffers identification, "the appropriate local election official shall record the type of identification provided, the social security number information, the fact that the affirmation was executed, or the fact that the individual declined to execute such an affirmation and include that information with the transmission of the ballot . . . ." (Emphasis added.)

You guys can say whatever you want I suppose, but this is a change in the law mid-election. What about people who are illiterate? The burden of proof is on the SoS to show why this change is necessary.


In short, the law clearly says that the ELECTION OFFICIAL, not the voter, has to record the identification information. This directive changes (or attempts to change) the law to require the voter to fill out that form, i.e. do the recording portion. On top of that, it directly contradicts a court decision that says provisional ballots have to be counted even if the voter form is not filled out correctly.

Between the two, yes, I think there's cause for ourtrage. The Secretary of State knows the law and the current rulings and is willfully opposing them.
 
2012-11-03 09:44:35 PM
I should be more shocked one of our resident Republicans is proudly defending a blatant attempt to stop voting.
 
2012-11-03 09:44:45 PM

skullkrusher: Blue_Blazer: skullkrusher: LazarusLong42: It could throw out provisional ballots that have already been cast. How many times do we need to say that?

HOW? How can it do that? Prior to this directive they accepted incomplete ballots and counted them? Identifying information was optional? You can say it a billion times but it still isn't gonna make any farking sense

LazarusLong42: Also, thus is just the latest in a string of attempted disenfranchisement from Husted. He's gotten smacked by federal judges something like ten times in the past three months.

I can see attempts to disenfranchise people to help the GOP but is too-stupid-to-fill-out-a-form-correctly a big Democratic bloc? Seems to me that this will disenfrachise people across the political spectrum

And the state law that dictates that the election official is required to record the type of ID? You don't see any problem with him ignoring state law and making his own rules?

sure but I am not terribly outraged by it. I do not have deep respect and admiration for Ohio law and if someone does something that is contrary to that law with no apparent negative consequences, I don't give a shiat and have a hard time working up outrage.

Had he passed a directive about showing ID at the polls to vote 4 days ahead of time, yeah, I'd join the outrage parade. Checking a box? Perhaps I just don't know anyone who is stupid enough to be impacted by that and therefore cannot imagine it being an issue


Are you really this stupid or trolling?
 
2012-11-03 09:45:31 PM

Anderson's Pooper: Blue_Blazer: People who don't read English?

How'd they pass the citizenship test then?


/Feeling very snarky today
//Don't take it seriously


Some people over a certain age are allowed  to take the citizenship test in their native language.
 
2012-11-03 09:45:33 PM

DamnYankees: The outrage comes from the context. Don't pretend not to know that. This is part of an ongoing effort by this asshole to disenfranchise voters. Obviously if you don't buy that at all this won't make any difference to you.


so that's his thing? He just wants to disenfranchise voters in general cuz he's a dick? Or is he trying to disenfrachise Democratic voters? If that's his gambit, I can't see this being an example because I can't see how this would impact Dems to a greater degree than Reps

DamnYankees: We take it piece by piece. Is knowing your name a basic requirement of determining who can vote? Yes, I think we can all agree it is. Is changing the law so that the voter, rather than the election official, has to identify the form of ID used in voting a basic requirement of determining who can vote? You'd be insane to try to argue that.


I think you are addicted to election outrage

DamnYankees: I dont care if it helps the GOP or the Dems. Everyone should vote. If the GOP wins, so be it. I dont know why you bring this up.


because unless he's just a Batman villain who likes wreaking havoc by disenfranchising the public willy-nilly, he's gotta have an objective to do this with the intention of disenfranchising people. Presumably that would be to help the GOP.
 
2012-11-03 09:45:58 PM

skullkrusher: Blue_Blazer: skullkrusher: LazarusLong42: It could throw out provisional ballots that have already been cast. How many times do we need to say that?

HOW? How can it do that? Prior to this directive they accepted incomplete ballots and counted them? Identifying information was optional? You can say it a billion times but it still isn't gonna make any farking sense

LazarusLong42: Also, thus is just the latest in a string of attempted disenfranchisement from Husted. He's gotten smacked by federal judges something like ten times in the past three months.

I can see attempts to disenfranchise people to help the GOP but is too-stupid-to-fill-out-a-form-correctly a big Democratic bloc? Seems to me that this will disenfrachise people across the political spectrum

And the state law that dictates that the election official is required to record the type of ID? You don't see any problem with him ignoring state law and making his own rules?

sure but I am not terribly outraged by it. I do not have deep respect and admiration for Ohio law and if someone does something that is contrary to that law with no apparent negative consequences, I don't give a shiat and have a hard time working up outrage.

Had he passed a directive about showing ID at the polls to vote 4 days ahead of time, yeah, I'd join the outrage parade. Checking a box? Perhaps I just don't know anyone who is stupid enough to be impacted by that and therefore cannot imagine it being an issue


You really are just plain stupid. This directive is changing the rules mid stream. How about if he had declared 1 month into early voting that only provisional ballots written in cursive with blue ink will be valid? I mean everyone learned cursive in school and blue pens are very common, what's the problem right?

This changing the rules during the two minute warning. No matter how minor you think the rule change is, it is a blatant attempt to have ballots already cast be disqualified without any recourse by the voter who 2 weeks ago had the poll worker help them by filling out the form for them.
 
2012-11-03 09:46:19 PM

dustman81: skullkrusher: Blue_Blazer: skullkrusher: LazarusLong42: It could throw out provisional ballots that have already been cast. How many times do we need to say that?

HOW? How can it do that? Prior to this directive they accepted incomplete ballots and counted them? Identifying information was optional? You can say it a billion times but it still isn't gonna make any farking sense

LazarusLong42: Also, thus is just the latest in a string of attempted disenfranchisement from Husted. He's gotten smacked by federal judges something like ten times in the past three months.

I can see attempts to disenfranchise people to help the GOP but is too-stupid-to-fill-out-a-form-correctly a big Democratic bloc? Seems to me that this will disenfrachise people across the political spectrum

And the state law that dictates that the election official is required to record the type of ID? You don't see any problem with him ignoring state law and making his own rules?

sure but I am not terribly outraged by it. I do not have deep respect and admiration for Ohio law and if someone does something that is contrary to that law with no apparent negative consequences, I don't give a shiat and have a hard time working up outrage.

Had he passed a directive about showing ID at the polls to vote 4 days ahead of time, yeah, I'd join the outrage parade. Checking a box? Perhaps I just don't know anyone who is stupid enough to be impacted by that and therefore cannot imagine it being an issue

Are you really this stupid or trolling?


I guess stupid if "stupid" means I don't think checking a box is burdensome and frankly find your faux outrage laughable
 
2012-11-03 09:47:48 PM

max_pooper: No matter how minor you think the rule change is, it is a blatant attempt to have ballots already cast be disqualified without any recourse by the voter who 2 weeks ago had the poll worker help them by filling out the form for them.


how? If the farking poll worker filled out the form for them previously, how is this new rule going to prevent their vote from being counted? Please, take your time constructing your brilliant response.
 
Displayed 50 of 201 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report