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  
•       •       •

3052 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 09:47:53 PM

yukichigai: 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.


thank you, I hate to quote or repeat myself. There are actual concerns here, it's not just hang-wringing and pearl-clutching. I would suspect that some people might even fill out multiple sections of the form. BOOM incorrectly filled out, tossed. How many disenfranchised voters is ok for the sake of....what exactly? Where is the compelling interest in this 11th hour modification? Especially given the history of this particular scumbag SoS, the burden of proof must be on him to show why this change is necessary.
 
2012-11-03 09:48:09 PM
Are all the Republicans in Ohio rightwing shiat stains?
 
2012-11-03 09:49:55 PM

yukichigai: 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.


yeah, I get that this is contrary to the law but I just don't see it as a willful attempt to disenfranchise anyone because there is no way that this could help his team vs the other. I don't find it onerous, I don't find it a deliberate attempt to rig the election, I don't find all this terrible concern terribly convincing
 
2012-11-03 09:51:05 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Link

I cannot recommend this documentary enough. Airing on PBS.


Yeah, they'll be fixing that soon too.
 
2012-11-03 09:53:15 PM
I'm looking forward to the Kent State protests afterward.
 
2012-11-03 09:54:58 PM

Blue_Blazer: thank you, I hate to quote or repeat myself. There are actual concerns here, it's not just hang-wringing and pearl-clutching. I would suspect that some people might even fill out multiple sections of the form. BOOM incorrectly filled out, tossed. How many disenfranchised voters is ok for the sake of....what exactly? Where is the compelling interest in this 11th hour modification? Especially given the history of this particular scumbag SoS, the burden of proof must be on him to show why this change is necessary


it doesn't appear to be a modification:

"All Boards must use SOS Form 12-B, originally provided with Directive 2012-01 and attached to
this Directive, on provisional ballot affirmation envelopes for the November 2012 General
Election."

SOS Form 12-B is the one in TFA. Directive 2012-01 came in January of this year.
 
2012-11-03 09:56:57 PM

skullkrusher: 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.


Provisional ballots are not counted until at least election day. This directive was clearly made with the intent to have provisional ballots invalidated that were cast following the rules as they were just before the issue of this directive. It also gives the voter who cat a provisional ballot prior the this change any recourse to correct it.

It is no different than my bullshiat about requiring cursive in blue ink. Anyone who has previously used blaa ink would have their's thrown in the trash with without being able to correct the issue.

You can't be this stupid.
 
2012-11-03 09:56:58 PM

skullkrusher: yeah, I get that this is contrary to the law but I just don't see it as a willful attempt to disenfranchise anyone


What purpose is there to this change, this late in the game, that is outright illegal?

What other purpose could there be?
 
2012-11-03 09:57:04 PM

skullkrusher: yukichigai: 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.

yeah, I get that this is contrary to the law but I just don't see it as a willful attempt to disenfranchise anyone because there is no way that this could help his team vs the other.


Other than the fact that Obama holds a 15+% lead among early voters, who would be the only ones getting their votes invalidated?
 
2012-11-03 09:59:05 PM

skullkrusher: yukichigai: 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.

yeah, I get that this is contrary to the law but I just don't see it as a willful attempt to disenfranchise anyone because there is no way that this could help his team vs the other. I don't find it onerous, I don't find it a deliberate attempt to rig the election, I don't find all this terrible concern terribly convincing


Honestly, if it is an attempt to disenfranchise voters it's pretty mediocre, since it's directly and unambiguously illegal on not just one but two counts. On its face it seems pretty unlikely. Then again, when I ask myself "why would the SoS issue such a pants-on-head retarded directive" the only answer that makes ANY sense is "trying to disenfranchise people with poor written English skills." Well... that and "brain tumor/stroke".
 
2012-11-03 09:59:23 PM
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  

The burden of doing this correctly shifts from the election officer to the voter, and incorrectly marked ballots are no longer counted. Additionally, as I have stated, people with difficulty or inability to read English will have problems completing the form and knowing which box to check and what kind of information to put on the form.
Without a good reason, there's no excuse for changing the law, on his own farking accord like he's the god damn Batman.
 
2012-11-03 10:00:45 PM

Thigvald the Big-Balled: skullkrusher: yukichigai: 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.

yeah, I get that this is contrary to the law but I just don't see it as a willful attempt to disenfranchise anyone because there is no way that this could help his team vs the other.

Other than the fact that Obama holds a 15+% lead among early voters, who would be the only ones getting their votes invalidated?


Provisional ballots and early voting aren't the same thing.
 
2012-11-03 10:01:29 PM
I'm sure it's entirely coincidental that he's a Republican.
 
2012-11-03 10:02:00 PM

max_pooper: Provisional ballots are not counted until at least election day. This directive was clearly made with the intent to have provisional ballots invalidated that were cast following the rules as they were just before the issue of this directive. It also gives the voter who cat a provisional ballot prior the this change any recourse to correct it.

It is no different than my bullshiat about requiring cursive in blue ink. Anyone who has previously used blaa ink would have their's thrown in the trash with without being able to correct the issue.


they're the same rules.
The form this directive uses is the same form that they have had in place since at least January.
"You can't be this stupid"
 
2012-11-03 10:02:04 PM

skullkrusher: yukichigai: 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.

yeah, I get that this is contrary to the law but I just don't see it as a willful attempt to disenfranchise anyone because there is no way that this could help his team vs the other. I don't find it onerous, I don't find it a deliberate attempt to rig the election, I don't find all this terrible concern terribly convincing


Who are the people most likely to vote provisionally? Perhaps college students? Maybe a person who moved after the registration deadline? How about the homeless?

Who do you think a majority of the people in the above groups would vote for as President? Answer that question and you'll know why this is a deliberate attempt.
 
2012-11-03 10:02:51 PM

Bucky Katt: Are all the Republicans in Ohio rightwing shiat stains?


That is not a condition which stops at the Ohio border.

But more importantly, I have to congratulate skullkrusher because I haven't seen rightwing Republican shiatstains equivocate this hard since the Patriot Act was passed. Thanks for showing us all what side of liberty you're actually on, you useless piece of human refuse. You're either not smart enough to grasp why this is bad or you're knowingly spinning in the hopes your team wins the Big Game. Either way you're a waste of the time, space and oxygen you take up and I wish I could get to see your shiatty little face when you lose on Tuesday.
 
2012-11-03 10:03:59 PM

skullkrusher: Thigvald the Big-Balled: skullkrusher: yukichigai: 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.

yeah, I get that this is contrary to the law but I just don't see it as a willful attempt to disenfranchise anyone because there is no way that this could help his team vs the other.

Other than the fact that Obama holds a 15+% lead among early voters, who would be the only ones getting their votes invalidated?

Provisional ballots and early voting aren't the same thing.


But people can vote early via a provisional ballot.
 
2012-11-03 10:05:17 PM

skullkrusher: yeah, I get that this is contrary to the law but I just don't see it as a willful attempt to disenfranchise anyone because there is no way that this could help his team vs the other. I don't find it onerous, I don't find it a deliberate attempt to rig the election, I don't find all this terrible concern terribly convincing


Then why the hell would he change the rule? What's the motive? Caprice? Lulz?
 
2012-11-03 10:05:36 PM

skullkrusher: max_pooper: Provisional ballots are not counted until at least election day. This directive was clearly made with the intent to have provisional ballots invalidated that were cast following the rules as they were just before the issue of this directive. It also gives the voter who cat a provisional ballot prior the this change any recourse to correct it.

It is no different than my bullshiat about requiring cursive in blue ink. Anyone who has previously used blaa ink would have their's thrown in the trash with without being able to correct the issue.

they're the same rules.
The form this directive uses is the same form that they have had in place since at least January.
"You can't be this stupid"


You really are this stupid.

The form did not change (which exactly zero people are claiming), the requirements for filling it out changed.
 
2012-11-03 10:06:51 PM

max_pooper: skullkrusher: 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.

Provisional ballots are not counted until at least election day. This directive was clearly made with the intent to have provisional ballots invalidated that were cast following the rules as they were just before the issue of this directive. It also gives the voter who cat a provisional ballot prior the this change any recourse to correct it.

It is no different than my bullshiat about requiring cursive in blue ink. Anyone who has previously used blaa ink would have their's thrown in the trash with without being able to correct the issue.

You can't be this stupid.


max_pooper: skullkrusher: 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.

Provisional ballots are not counted until at least election day. This directive was clearly made with the intent to have provisional ballots invalidated that were cast following the rules as they were just before the issue of this directive. It also gives the voter who cat a provisional ballot prior the this change any recourse to correct it.

It is no different than my bullshiat about requiring cursive in blue ink. Anyone who has previously used blaa ink would have their's thrown in the trash with without being able to correct the issue.

You can't be this stupid.


F**k you , you fascist! Who are you to say he can't be that stupid? This is America, where a man is free to be as motherf**king stupid as he chooses to be - and don't you forget it.
i18.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-03 10:07:30 PM

dustman81: skullkrusher: Thigvald the Big-Balled: skullkrusher: yukichigai: 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.

yeah, I get that this is contrary to the law but I just don't see it as a willful attempt to disenfranchise anyone because there is no way that this could help his team vs the other.

Other than the fact that Obama holds a 15+% lead among early voters, who would be the only ones getting their votes invalidated?

Provisional ballots and early voting aren't the same thing.

But people can vote early via a provisional ballot.


And given the 10s of thousands of "missing" registrations due to a Glitch many people ARE casting provisional ballots.
 
2012-11-03 10:08:59 PM

tomcatadam: skullkrusher: yeah, I get that this is contrary to the law but I just don't see it as a willful attempt to disenfranchise anyone

What purpose is there to this change, this late in the game, that is outright illegal?

What other purpose could there be?


it doesn't appear to be a change at all. His directive talks about ensuring uniformity across all districts, The first snip is the steps from the recent directive describing how to determine if a ballot is valid. The 2nd snip is from the directive from January to which the outrageous outrage form in this Alternet article was attached


Step 1: Determine whether the affirmation statement on the provisional ballot envelope
contains both the voter's printed name and either a valid signature or a note by
the precinct election official on the signature line indicating that the voter
declined to execute an affirmation.
• If the affirmation statement contains both the voter's printed name and either a valid
signature or a note on the signature line that the voter declined to sign, proceed to
Step 2.
• If the affirmation statement does not contain both the voter's printed name and
either a valid signature or declination, then the Board must reject the provisional
ballot.5
The presence of the voter's printed name and signature is a requirement of state law, affirmed by
the Ohio Supreme Court in Skaggs v Brunner, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in SEIU v.
Husted.
2 R.C. 3505.183(E)(1)
3 R.C. 3505.183(D)
4 R.C. 3505.32(A)
5 R.C. 3505.183(B)(4)(a)(iii)
Directive 2012-54 Determining the Validity of Provisional Ballots and NEOCH Consent Decree Page 3 of 8
Step 2: Determine whether the provisional voter provided at least one of the following:
the last four digits of the voter's social security number, the voter's driver's
license number, OR a notation that the voter provided another form of
acceptable identification.
• If the voter provided one of the acceptable forms of identification proceed to Step 3.
• If the voter did not provide one of the acceptable forms of identification but
completed a Form 10-T, proceed to Step 3.
• If the voter did not provide identification on the provisional ballot affirmation but
returned to board of elections within ten days after the election6 and provided
identification or signed the SOS Form 10-T proceed to Step 3.
• If the voter did not provide identification on the provisional ballot affirmation, did not
complete SOS Form 10-T , and did not return to the Board within the ten days after
the election to remedy the missing item, the Board must reject the provisional
ballot.
Step 3: Determine whether the Board can verify the identity of the voter based on the
voter's printed name, signature, and identification information provided on the
provisional ballot affirmation or provided by the voter within the ten day
period.
• If the Board can verify the identity of the voter based upon the information provided
on the provisional ballot affirmation and/or provided by the voter within ten days of
the election, proceed to Step 4.
• If the Board cannot verify the identity of the voter based upon the information
provided on the provisional ballot affirmation and/or the information provided by the
voter within ten days of the election, the Board must reject the provisional ballot.7
Note that verification of identity includes at least one search of the county's
local voter registration database by entering as much or as little information as
is available, and by using "wildcard" searches if available, and at least one
6 The only four reasons to require a provisional voter to provide additional information to the board of elections
during the ten days after the day of an election are:
• The voter possesses a social security number or proper identification, but was unable to provide it to the
precinct election official; R.C. 3505.181(A)(3)
• The voter possesses a social security number or proper identification, but declined to provide it to the precinct
election official; R.C. 3505.181 (A)(13)
• The voter does not possess a social security number or proper identification, and refused to sign a SOS Form
10-T; R.C. 3505.181(A)(12)
• The voter was challenged at the polling place and his or her eligibility to vote could not be determined by the
precinct election officials; R.C. 3505.181(A)(7)
7 R.C. 3505.183(B)(4)(b)(i); State ex rel. Skaggs v. Brunner (2008), 120 Ohio St. 3d 506.
Directive 2012-54 Determining the Validity of Provisional Ballots and NEOCH Consent Decree Page 4 of 8
search of all counties using the statewide voter registration database by
entering as much or as little information as is available.
Unlike a voter registration card or absentee ballot application, date of birth
and address are not required on a provisional ballot affirmation. Therefore,
a provisional ballot affirmation that does not have the voter's date of birth
and/or address is valid so long as the board can verify the voter's identity and
registration status in the State of Ohio.
Step 4: Determine whether the voter is a registered voter anywhere in the State of Ohio
at least 30 days before the election.
• If the voter was registered to vote anywhere in the State of Ohio at least 30 days
before the election, proceed to Step 5.
• If the voter was not registered to vote anywhere in the State of Ohio at least 30 days
before the election, then the Board must reject the provisional ballot.8
Step 5: Determine whether the voter is a resident of the county and precinct in which
the voter offers to vote.9
• If the voter is a resident of the county and precinct in which the provisional ballot was
cast, then the Board must accept and count the provisional ballot;
• If the voter moved and provided a new address within the precinct on the back of the
provisional ballot envelope, then the voter is considered a resident of the new county
and precinct and the Board must accept and count the provisional ballot;
• If the voter cast the provisional ballot in the wrong precinct, but in the correct polling
place, including the board of elections office, and a precinct election official did not
complete and attach SOS Form 12-D to the provisional ballot envelope, the Board
must remake and count the provisional ballot for only those contests for which
the voter was otherwise eligible to vote.
• If the voter cast the provisional ballot in the wrong precinct, but in the correct polling
place, including the board of elections office, and a precinct election official did
complete and attach SOS Form 12-D, but the Board verified that the precinct to
which the poll worker directed the voter was the incorrect precinct, the Board must
remake and count the provisional ballot for only those contests for which the
voter was otherwise eligible to vote.
• If the voter cast the provisional ballot in the wrong precinct, but correct polling place,
including the board of elections office, and (1) a precinct election official completed
8 Ohio Constitution Article V, Section 1; R.C. 3505.183(B)(4)(a)(i); R.C. 3505.183(B)(4)(a)(iv); R.C.
3505.183(B)(4)(a)(vi)
9 R.C. 3503.01(A)
Directive 2012-54 Determining the Validity of Provisional Ballots and NEOCH Consent Decree Page 5 of 8
SOS Form 12-D and (2) the Board verified that the precinct to which the precinct
election official directed the voter was the correct precinct, the Board must reject the
provisional ballot.
• If the voter cast the provisional ballot in the wrong precinct and wrong polling place
the Board must reject the provisional ballot.

Step 1: Determine whether the affirmation statement provided on the provisional ballot enveJope
contains both:
a) the voter's printed name on the provisional ballot envelope and;
b) either a valid signature after the affirmation or a note by the precinct election official
on the signature line - that the voter declined to execute an affirmation.
• If the affirmation statement contains both the voter's printed name and either a
valid signature or a note on the signature line that the voter declined to sign, then
proceed to Step 2;
• If the affirmation statement does not contain both the voter's printed name, a
valid signature, or declination, but the voter provided last 4 digits of the voter's
Social Security Number, then proceed to Step 2 (see NEOCH page 5);
• If the affirmation statement does not contain both the voter's printed name and
either a valid signature or declination, and the voter did not provide the last 4
digits of voter's Social Security Number as identification, then the Board must
reject the provisional ballot.4
Step 2; Determine whether the provisional voter was required to provide additional information
to the board of elections within ten days after the election.
There are only four reasons5 to require a provisional voter to provide additional information to the
board of elections during the ten days after the day of an election:
1. The voter possesses a SSN or proper identification, but was unable6 to provide it to the
precinct election official;
2. The voter possesses a SSN or proper identification, but declined7 to provide it to the precinct
election official;
3. The voter does not possess8 a SSN or proper identification, and refused to sign a SOS Form
10-T;
4. The voter was challenged9 at the polling place and his or her eligibility to vote could not be
determined by the precinct election officials;
3 R.C. 3505.32(A)
4R.C.3505.183(B)(4)(a)(iii)
5R.C.3505.181(B)(8)
6R.C.3505.181(A)(3)
7R.C.3505.181(A)(13)
8R.C.3505.181(A)(12)
9R.C.3505.181(A)(7)
Directive 2012-01 Determining the Validity of Provisional Ballots Page 3 of 4
• If the voter was not required to provide additional information then proceed to
Step 3;
• If the voter provided the necessary information within ten days of the election,
then proceed to Step 3;
• If the voter was required to provide additional information to the board of
elections but failed to do so within ten days of the election, then the Board must
reject the provisional ballot.10
Step 3: Determine whether the Board can verify the identity of the voter based on the voter's
printed name, signature, and identification information provided on the provisional ballot
envelope or by the voter within the ten day period.
• If the Board can verify the identity of the voter based upon the information
provided on the provisional ballot envelope and/or provided by the voter within
ten days of the election, then proceed to Step 4;
• If the Board cannot verify the identity of the voter based upon the information
provided on the provisional ballot envelope and/or the information provided by
the voter within ten days of the election, then the Board must reject the
provisional ballot.11
Note that verification of identity includes at least one search of the county's local
voter registration database by entering as much or as little information as is available,
and by including "wildcards" if available, and?X least one search of all counties using
the statewide voter registration database by entering as much or as little information
as is available.
Unlike a voter registration card or absentee ballot application, date of birth and
address are not required on a provisional ballot envelope. Therefore, a provisional
ballot that does not have the voter's date of birth and/or address is valid so long as
the board can verify the voter's identity and registration status in the State of Ohio.
Step 4: Determine whether the voter is a registered voter anywhere in the State of Ohio at least
30 days before the election.
• If the voter was registered to vote anywhere in the State of Ohio at least 30 days
before the election, proceed to Step 5;
• If the voter was not registered to vote anywhere in the State of Ohio at least 30
days before the election, then the Board must reject the provisional ballot.12
Step 5: Determine whether the voter is a resident of the county and precinct in which the voter
offers to vote.13
• If the voter moved and provided a new address within the precinct on the
provisional ballot envelope, then the voter is considered a resident of the new
county and precinct.
10 R.C. 3505.183(B)(4)(a)(v); R.C. 3505.183(B)(4)(a)(vii)
11 R.C. 3505.183(B)(4)(b)(i); State ex rel Skaggs v. Brunner (2008), 120 Ohio St. 3d 506.
12 Ohio Constitution Article V, Section 1; R.C. 3505.183(B)(4)(a)(i); R.C. 3505.183(B)(4)(a)(iv); R.C.
3505.183(B)(4)(a)(vi)
13 R.C. 3503.01(A)
Directive 2012-01 Determining the Validity of Provisional Ballots Page 4 of 4
• If the voter is a resident of the county and precinct in which the provisional ballot
was cast, then the Board must accept and count the provisional ballot:
• If the voter is not a resident of the county and precinct in which the provisional
ballot was cast, and the voter provided only the last 4 digits of the voter's Social
Security Number as identification, then move to the "Applying the NEOCH
Exception" on this page;
• If the voter is not a resident of the county and precinct in which the provisional
ballot was cast and the voter did not provide the last 4 digits of the voter's Social
Security Number as identification, then the Board must reject the provisional
ballot14
 
2012-11-03 10:10:51 PM
To the "it doesn't matter" camp...

if it didn't matter, why did they issue the directive at all?
 
2012-11-03 10:11:19 PM

max_pooper: skullkrusher: max_pooper: Provisional ballots are not counted until at least election day. This directive was clearly made with the intent to have provisional ballots invalidated that were cast following the rules as they were just before the issue of this directive. It also gives the voter who cat a provisional ballot prior the this change any recourse to correct it.

It is no different than my bullshiat about requiring cursive in blue ink. Anyone who has previously used blaa ink would have their's thrown in the trash with without being able to correct the issue.

they're the same rules.
The form this directive uses is the same form that they have had in place since at least January.
"You can't be this stupid"

You really are this stupid.

The form did not change (which exactly zero people are claiming), the requirements for filling it out changed.


you're right. The form did not change. It has said this since January of this year

"If you do not check one of the following boxes affirming the type of ID you showed to the precinct election official or
do not complete Form 10-T (only if you are eligible to do so), the board of elections will conclude that you did NOT
show ID to your precinct election official and you must show ID at the board of elections during the 10 days after the
election for your vote to be eligible to be counted."

See that bold? See the word "you"? On your screen does that say "poll worker"? Slink away, boy. Slink away.
 
2012-11-03 10:12:10 PM

hillbillypharmacist: skullkrusher: yeah, I get that this is contrary to the law but I just don't see it as a willful attempt to disenfranchise anyone because there is no way that this could help his team vs the other. I don't find it onerous, I don't find it a deliberate attempt to rig the election, I don't find all this terrible concern terribly convincing

Then why the hell would he change the rule? What's the motive? Caprice? Lulz?


He didn't change the farking rule. Alternet is a farking rag.
Holy crap
 
2012-11-03 10:15:06 PM

skullkrusher: He didn't change the farking rule. Alternet is a farking rag.


So you're saying that the directive, issued Friday, by Husted, never actually happened.
 
2012-11-03 10:16:24 PM

skullkrusher: hillbillypharmacist: skullkrusher: yeah, I get that this is contrary to the law but I just don't see it as a willful attempt to disenfranchise anyone because there is no way that this could help his team vs the other. I don't find it onerous, I don't find it a deliberate attempt to rig the election, I don't find all this terrible concern terribly convincing

Then why the hell would he change the rule? What's the motive? Caprice? Lulz?

He didn't change the farking rule. Alternet is a farking rag.
Holy crap


Yeah, Alternet sucks, sure.

Good thing there are other sources of information out there
 
2012-11-03 10:16:26 PM

skullkrusher: it doesn't appear to be a change at all. His directive talks about ensuring uniformity across all districts, The first snip is the steps from the recent directive describing how to determine if a ballot is valid. The 2nd snip is from the directive from January to which the outrageous outrage form in this Alternet article was attached


Yes, that's the problem. The court decision last week said that his previous directive was not in keeping with the law, and that provisional ballots had to be accepted even if the provisional voter form was not filled out. But the new directive still contains language which violates that ruling:

If the Board cannot verify the identity of the voter based upon the information
provided on the provisional ballot envelope and/or the information provided by
the voter within ten days of the election, then the Board must reject the
provisional ballot.


The wording is identical between the two directives. Basically, he was told "change it" and he didn't.
 
2012-11-03 10:17:14 PM

Dwight_Yeast: The Great EZE: If Obama wins Virginia (which is likely right now) this is all for naught. I'm more than happy with Obama winning Tuesday 285-235 (or 276-244 if Colorado acts up) with the rest of November's news being dedicated to how Republican officials tried to steal an election...and failed.

It he wins, it's likely that we won't hear a whisper about the GOP's behavior at the state level, and they'll start preparing an even more insane round of voter disenfranchisement for the midterms and 2016.


We'll not hear a whisper about it regardless of who wins. Didn't you get the memo? If you accuse the GOP of something bad and don't immediately point out that the Democrats once did something vaguely resembling this (possibly more than 50 years ago), then you're clearly liberally biased. And the matching corrolary, if a Democrat ever did anything bad then whatever the GOP just did is OK.

/Liberal media my ass
 
2012-11-03 10:18:24 PM

hillbillypharmacist: skullkrusher: He didn't change the farking rule. Alternet is a farking rag.

So you're saying that the directive, issued Friday, by Husted, never actually happened.


what I'm saying is that you haven't read the directive, have you?
 
2012-11-03 10:18:46 PM

hillbillypharmacist: skullkrusher: yeah, I get that this is contrary to the law but I just don't see it as a willful attempt to disenfranchise anyone because there is no way that this could help his team vs the other. I don't find it onerous, I don't find it a deliberate attempt to rig the election, I don't find all this terrible concern terribly convincing

Then why the hell would he change the rule? What's the motive? Caprice? Lulz?


SoS John Husted: I hate those damn libs! Damn them! They always foil my plans!
John Husted's Assistant: It's OK sir, I'm sure we'll win anyway.
SoS John Husted: First I tried to put Republicans in charge of what hours early voting was allowed in Democratic districts, but then the NY Times called me on it and I had to change it!
John Husted's Assistant: You did your best sir.
SoS John Husted: Then I eliminated early voting days just before the election, and they got an injunction! Pests!
John Husted's Assistant: Yes, but you stood strong, sir!
SoS John Husted: Damn right I did! I told that judge I was going to ignore him. But then he called me back to court to explain why I was ignoring a court order, and I had to allow early voting again. Bastard!
John Husted's Assistant: You win some and you lose some, sir.
SoS John Husted: This time I'll get them! I'll make a tiny change that is clearly illegal, but for which the consequences are so unclear and close to the day of voting they won't have time or motivation to fight me on it!
John Husted's Assistant: But sir, that won't actually accomplish anything.
SoS John Husted: I'll win! FINALLY, VICTORY WILL BE MINE! *gnashes teeth evilly*
John Husted's Assistant: Um, sir, it looks like they're going to fight this new change in court too.
SoS John Husted: ARG! DAMN YOU LIBS! DAMN YOU!
 
2012-11-03 10:19:58 PM

yukichigai: skullkrusher: it doesn't appear to be a change at all. His directive talks about ensuring uniformity across all districts, The first snip is the steps from the recent directive describing how to determine if a ballot is valid. The 2nd snip is from the directive from January to which the outrageous outrage form in this Alternet article was attached

Yes, that's the problem. The court decision last week said that his previous directive was not in keeping with the law, and that provisional ballots had to be accepted even if the provisional voter form was not filled out. But the new directive still contains language which violates that ruling:

If the Board cannot verify the identity of the voter based upon the information
provided on the provisional ballot envelope and/or the information provided by
the voter within ten days of the election, then the Board must reject the
provisional ballot.

The wording is identical between the two directives. Basically, he was told "change it" and he didn't.


NOW this makes sense. I can see why people would be pissed about that. Unfortunately it seems that you're the only one in this thread with this understanding. Everyone else is upset about who checks a box on a form and how that allegedly changed as a result of this directive despite the fact that the form which provides this particular instruction has been in effect all year

Thanks for the clarification
 
2012-11-03 10:21:47 PM

skullkrusher: what I'm saying is that you haven't read the directive, have you?


If he didn't change anything, why is a federal judge going to rule on it? They don't usually take the time to hear a case because some dude in government says, "well everything is going according to plan, carry on"
 
2012-11-03 10:21:51 PM

L Ron Hubbard's Last Fart: skullkrusher: hillbillypharmacist: skullkrusher: yeah, I get that this is contrary to the law but I just don't see it as a willful attempt to disenfranchise anyone because there is no way that this could help his team vs the other. I don't find it onerous, I don't find it a deliberate attempt to rig the election, I don't find all this terrible concern terribly convincing

Then why the hell would he change the rule? What's the motive? Caprice? Lulz?

He didn't change the farking rule. Alternet is a farking rag.
Holy crap

Yeah, Alternet sucks, sure.

Good thing there are other sources of information out there


"The advocates, including lawyers for unions that previously sued over provisional ballots, said the order by Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted late Friday wrongly puts the burden of recording the form of ID used on a provisional ballot on voters, not poll workers."

The directive declares the Sec of State to be in possession of a time machine and uses that time machine to put the burden of recording the form of ID on the voter back in January
 
2012-11-03 10:22:53 PM

skullkrusher: yukichigai: skullkrusher: it doesn't appear to be a change at all. His directive talks about ensuring uniformity across all districts, The first snip is the steps from the recent directive describing how to determine if a ballot is valid. The 2nd snip is from the directive from January to which the outrageous outrage form in this Alternet article was attached

Yes, that's the problem. The court decision last week said that his previous directive was not in keeping with the law, and that provisional ballots had to be accepted even if the provisional voter form was not filled out. But the new directive still contains language which violates that ruling:

If the Board cannot verify the identity of the voter based upon the information
provided on the provisional ballot envelope and/or the information provided by
the voter within ten days of the election, then the Board must reject the
provisional ballot.

The wording is identical between the two directives. Basically, he was told "change it" and he didn't.

NOW this makes sense. I can see why people would be pissed about that. Unfortunately it seems that you're the only one in this thread with this understanding. Everyone else is upset about who checks a box on a form and how that allegedly changed as a result of this directive despite the fact that the form which provides this particular instruction has been in effect all year

Thanks for the clarification


Glad to help. Of course I'm sure the ranting flamewar will continue without our further involvement anyway, but hey, that's Fark.
 
2012-11-03 10:23:15 PM

hillbillypharmacist: skullkrusher: what I'm saying is that you haven't read the directive, have you?

If he didn't change anything, why is a federal judge going to rule on it? They don't usually take the time to hear a case because some dude in government says, "well everything is going according to plan, carry on"


apparently there are ongoing court cases regarding this stuff and there is some confusion on how it should go down. I am not making this up man. The form in TFA is the exact same one that accompanied the directive back in January. He didn't suddenly put the this oppressive burden on the voter. It's been on the voter since at least January.
 
2012-11-03 10:28:18 PM

skullkrusher: L Ron Hubbard's Last Fart: skullkrusher: hillbillypharmacist: skullkrusher: yeah, I get that this is contrary to the law but I just don't see it as a willful attempt to disenfranchise anyone because there is no way that this could help his team vs the other. I don't find it onerous, I don't find it a deliberate attempt to rig the election, I don't find all this terrible concern terribly convincing

Then why the hell would he change the rule? What's the motive? Caprice? Lulz?

He didn't change the farking rule. Alternet is a farking rag.
Holy crap

Yeah, Alternet sucks, sure.

Good thing there are other sources of information out there

"The advocates, including lawyers for unions that previously sued over provisional ballots, said the order by Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted late Friday wrongly puts the burden of recording the form of ID used on a provisional ballot on voters, not poll workers."

The directive declares the Sec of State to be in possession of a time machine and uses that time machine to put the burden of recording the form of ID on the voter back in January


I'm not quite sure what point you are arguing here. I'm not at all sure you know what point you are arguing.

Ohio Secretary of State John Husted issued a ruling that any ballots cast provisionally must, contrary to Ohio law, be filled out by the voter and not an election representative. This determination will happen on November 17th when, again by Ohio law, provisional ballots are counted. Those ballots will be judged by the ruling made by John Husted on Friday.

Educate yourself. It'll prevent you from looking like a complete tool in the future.
 
2012-11-03 10:28:55 PM

skullkrusher: hillbillypharmacist: skullkrusher: what I'm saying is that you haven't read the directive, have you?

If he didn't change anything, why is a federal judge going to rule on it? They don't usually take the time to hear a case because some dude in government says, "well everything is going according to plan, carry on"

apparently there are ongoing court cases regarding this stuff and there is some confusion on how it should go down. I am not making this up man. The form in TFA is the exact same one that accompanied the directive back in January. He didn't suddenly put the this oppressive burden on the voter. It's been on the voter since at least January.


My understanding is that the ruling last week came from the court case that was filed back when these forms originally came out. Technically the requirement has always been under dispute, it's just that last week it was finally decided as "not OK". Then the very next week the Secretary of State issues a directive containing almost the exact same requirement that caused the problem in the first place, that was flagged as "not OK".

...honestly I'm beginning to see why people are a little pissed at this guy. Willfully disobeying a judge isn't a good way to make friends.
 
2012-11-03 10:33:09 PM

yukichigai: ...honestly I'm beginning to see why so many people are a little pissed at this guy. Willfully disobeying a judge isn't a good way to make friends.


FTFM.

/The other douchebaggery didn't help either, I'm sure
 
2012-11-03 10:33:45 PM
It doesnt matter. At the end of it all Beeblebrox would still be the president.
 
2012-11-03 10:34:41 PM

yukichigai: My understanding is that the ruling last week came from the court case that was filed back when these forms originally came out. Technically the requirement has always been under dispute, it's just that last week it was finally decided as "not OK". Then the very next week the Secretary of State issues a directive containing almost the exact same requirement that caused the problem in the first place, that was flagged as "not OK".

...honestly I'm beginning to see why people are a little pissed at this guy. Willfully disobeying a judge isn't a good way to make friends.


another article has him having until Monday to respond to a lawsuit with a decision expected after election day.
 
2012-11-03 10:37:48 PM

L Ron Hubbard's Last Fart: I'm not quite sure what point you are arguing here. I'm not at all sure you know what point you are arguing.

Ohio Secretary of State John Husted issued a ruling that any ballots cast provisionally must, contrary to Ohio law, be filled out by the voter and not an election representative. This determination will happen on November 17th when, again by Ohio law, provisional ballots are counted. Those ballots will be judged by the ruling made by John Husted on Friday.

Educate yourself. It'll prevent you from looking like a complete tool in the future.


TFA says he changed the rules just before the election. He didn't. The rule has put this burden on the voter since at least January of 2012. This is not a switcheroo at the last minute. This does not apply new rules to provisional ballots cast now vis-a-vis ones cast last week. It is contrary to what seems to be a preliminary court ruling but that appears to be ongoing.

You know who uses the word "tool"? Frat boys at State U in 1995. That's who
 
2012-11-03 10:42:35 PM

skullkrusher: L Ron Hubbard's Last Fart: I'm not quite sure what point you are arguing here. I'm not at all sure you know what point you are arguing.

Ohio Secretary of State John Husted issued a ruling that any ballots cast provisionally must, contrary to Ohio law, be filled out by the voter and not an election representative. This determination will happen on November 17th when, again by Ohio law, provisional ballots are counted. Those ballots will be judged by the ruling made by John Husted on Friday.

Educate yourself. It'll prevent you from looking like a complete tool in the future.

TFA says he changed the rules just before the election. He didn't. The rule has put this burden on the voter since at least January of 2012. This is not a switcheroo at the last minute. This does not apply new rules to provisional ballots cast now vis-a-vis ones cast last week. It is contrary to what seems to be a preliminary court ruling but that appears to be ongoing.

You know who uses the word "tool"? Frat boys at State U in 1995. That's who


No, the current ruling was put in place on Friday. That's why the lawsuit was filed, and why a judge said he would rule before the provisional ballots are going to be opened on November 17th.

This rules apply to ALL provisional ballots cast at ALL times, because they are not counted until November 17th, at which point the determination would be made as to whether or not the elections official worker followed the law or Husted's rule.

Reading is fun and mental.
 
2012-11-03 10:43:50 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?


Because the right to vote is protected by the Constitution even if those ballots were not filled out correctly, as long as they are readable and understandable those people have a constitutionally protected right to have their vote count.

Why do you hate people voting?
 
2012-11-03 10:45:08 PM

L Ron Hubbard's Last Fart: No, the current ruling was put in place on Friday. That's why the lawsuit was filed, and why a judge said he would rule before the provisional ballots are going to be opened on November 17th.


what are you talking about? The form (from January) clearly tells the voter he is supposed to check off which form of ID he presented.
 
2012-11-03 10:45:13 PM
i512.photobucket.com

It doesn't matter why they're dressed as a leopard. Have they got my election?
 
2012-11-03 10:46:07 PM

Warlordtrooper: 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?

Because the right to vote is protected by the Constitution even if those ballots were not filled out correctly, as long as they are readable and understandable those people have a constitutionally protected right to have their vote count.

Why do you hate people voting?


huh?
 
2012-11-03 10:47:25 PM
t3.gstatic.com
 
2012-11-03 10:50:35 PM

Blue_Blazer: [t3.gstatic.com image 258x195]


Happiness in sodomy indeed
 
2012-11-03 10:52:06 PM
It doesn't matter who wins anyway. The role of the president isn't to run the country, it's to distract attention away from those who are running the country, which is why Zaphod Beeblebrox was such an outstanding president.
 
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