Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

3081 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Nov 2012 at 8:05 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-11-03 06:10:28 PM  
Filling out that form is a "burden"?
 
2012-11-03 06:29:27 PM  

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


Three days before an election? And imposed by a Tea Party Sec State who has a history of pushing voter suppression efforts? And in the most crucial swing state whom many believe was given to the Republicans in 2004 through fraud? Yeah, I don't get the big deal either.
 
2012-11-03 06:29:50 PM  
There's no point in acting all surprised about it. I'm sorry, but if you can't be bothered to take an interest in local affairs, that's your own regard
 
2012-11-03 06:39:08 PM  
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.
 
2012-11-03 06:39:33 PM  
Yeah, Republicans are really allowing a free and fair election in Ohio.
 
2012-11-03 06:48:15 PM  
Link

I cannot recommend this documentary enough. Airing on PBS.
 
2012-11-03 07:03:13 PM  

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


The form is a burden only if not used when employed during a period of three business calendar days preceding the second Tuesday in ... you get the idea.

I spend a fair amount of my week reviewing contracts for a very large company. This document was written with a lot of effort to ensure most people of reasonable intelligence and literacy skills would not be able to agree on how to fill it out.

Pretty f**king evil, honestly.
 
2012-11-03 07:06:26 PM  
This guy needs to be put in jail, them prison.
 
2012-11-03 07:13:44 PM  

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


It is, by definition, a burden. It's an additional thing you need to do in order to get your vote counted.
 
2012-11-03 07:37:13 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Link

I cannot recommend this documentary enough. Airing on PBS.


Yep. It's a disease 1:54
 
2012-11-03 07:44:12 PM  

bronyaur1: This guy needs to be put in jail, them prison coffin.

Coffin like cell.
What did you THINK I meant?

No really, why hasnt the judge thrown him in a cell for contempt yet?
Hold him for 20 days under some patriot act terrorism charge thingy.

FFS, this is the kind of guy who could really push someone like Dexter over the edge.
It is one thing to be a cheating asshole, but once the judges get involved ....

sigh

WHY are our elections still controlled by elected or appointed officials?
Do we need a 4th branch of government?
I really hate that we are so bad at this.
 
2012-11-03 07:47:12 PM  

namatad: Do we need a 4th branch of government?


SMALL GOVERNMENT
FIX OLD NO NEW
DEEERRRRRRRP
 
2012-11-03 07:50:31 PM  

namatad: FFS, this is the kind of guy who could really push someone like Dexter over the edge.


Indeed. The problem is, what do you do if the system doesn't take care of someone like this? Do we really need to resort to a "lone wolf", all Dexter-style? Has it really come to this?

:/

Not that I'm advocating anything like that....
 
2012-11-03 08:10:20 PM  
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.
 
2012-11-03 08:10:34 PM  
Apathetic bloody voters, I've got no sympathy at all.

/terrible ghastly noise
//terrible ghastly silence
 
2012-11-03 08:11:08 PM  
Why are republicans so afraid of the will of the electorate?
 
2012-11-03 08:14:07 PM  

xanadian: namatad: FFS, this is the kind of guy who could really push someone like Dexter over the edge.

Indeed. The problem is, what do you do if the system doesn't take care of someone like this? Do we really need to resort to a "lone wolf", all Dexter-style? Has it really come to this?
:/
Not that I'm advocating anything like that....


It is a bit worrisome for a democracy if you can not trust the elections. You would THINK that after 2000, we would have done something. Or after Ohio 2004, we would have at least looked closer at Ohio. And the recent court rulings have pretty much proven that Ohio is farking out of control.

And yet, the only thing preventing these guys from going full-rape, are judges and groups fighting to bring cases in front of judges. Why are we spending time, effort and money to fight to keep the right to vote?

sigh
 
2012-11-03 08:14:11 PM  
The Republicans must be pretty Goddamn confident that they can fix every election ever, because with crap like this being pretty much their MO for the entire election, I can't be the only one who would only ever consider voting Republican once every current member of the party is dead and buried in salted earth.

/and then only if I was drunk, stoned and lobotomized
 
2012-11-03 08:14:48 PM  
Too little. Too late.
 
2012-11-03 08:15:12 PM  
I love it. Keep on keeping on, you Republican farks. Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt how much of a sham, joke and farce electoral politics are. Undermining faith in the system that protects you and keeps you in power is a good long-term plan.
 
2012-11-03 08:16:01 PM  

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.


AND yet, the average Rape-American is alright with this kind of shiat, because it wont effect them.


dookdookdook: Why are republicans so afraid of the will of the electorate?


Rape-Americans are still upset that the darkie and the women-folk got the vote. Now the GAYS are allowed to vote too?
That has got to stop!!
 
2012-11-03 08:19:02 PM  
I doubt it's as easy as checking a blindingly obvious checkbox. Provisional ballot envelopes are more often than not designed for easy invalidation.
 
2012-11-03 08:19:16 PM  

dookdookdook: Why are republicans so afraid of the will of the electorate?


Both sides know what is best for you.


The difference is that liberals want you to drink smaller sodas and breath clean air.

Conservatives want to define your morality and concentrate wealth and power in those that 'deserve' it.
 
2012-11-03 08:19:33 PM  
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.
 
2012-11-03 08:20:34 PM  

GAT_00: Yeah, Republicans are really allowing a free and fair election in Ohio.


"Free and fair election?

oh I'm sorry, wow, lol, my bad. actually this is kinda funny....

see, I thought they said it was supposed to be a Free-for-all election.

Ok, yeah, in retrospect I can see how this might look bad in that case. Well, water over the damn! We'll do better next time."

-Jon Husted
 
2012-11-03 08:23:24 PM  
Hopefully, Ohio will be a forgone conclusion before November 17th.
 
2012-11-03 08:23:41 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Link

I cannot recommend this documentary enough. Airing on PBS.


Umm...ya "PBS" is just liberal propaganda and lefty socialist indoctrination.
 
2012-11-03 08:23:46 PM  

dookdookdook: Why are republicans so afraid of the will of the electorate?


Since I don't recognize your Fark log in, I will answer:

The Republican party is not a monolith. It is four voting blocks. Here's is what the GOP is:

The trickle down folks as Romney. The old white bigots. The Religious right wing. And the Tea Party small government folks.

Nothing Romney says can appeal to all of them. So, all the GOP has left to help the rich is rigging the election.
 
2012-11-03 08:24:11 PM  

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


Who's a tedious troll?

You are!
 
2012-11-03 08:25:57 PM  

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.


I would also be okay with this.

In one of the other threads up today, somebody said he'd like Obama to win the electoral vote handily, lose Ohio, and call for a recount in Ohio anyway. I'd be okay with that, too.

/also, I want Obama to win Florida
//voted for him earlier this week
///didn't vote straight ticket Democrat, specifically to reduce the chances of my ballot being "accidentally" lost
 
2012-11-03 08:29:00 PM  

Mrs.Sharpier: Umm...ya "PBS" is just liberal propaganda and lefty socialist indoctrination.


Well there is that.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2012-11-03 08:29:25 PM  

Mrs.Sharpier: Dusk-You-n-Me: Link

I cannot recommend this documentary enough. Airing on PBS.

Umm...ya "PBS" is just liberal propaganda and lefty socialist indoctrination.


Poe's Law?
 
2012-11-03 08:31:04 PM  
The absentee voter form I filled out here in Ohio asks for my DL number or last four of SSN, so that part I'm OK with, but Husted implementing this 3 days before voting ends when early voting has been going on for 34 days is wrong.

When I went to the Board of Elections (in Ohio, early voting is considered absentree), they didn't ask to actually see my ID. If I would have gone to my polling place on Election Day, I would have to show my ID.

It also appears he's violating state law by requiring the voter, not the election official, to record the form ID used.

I hope the court smacks this down and kicks Husted in the nuts for even trying.
 
2012-11-03 08:31:12 PM  
Given the Ohio Secretary of State's recent behavior, I am surprised they aren't waiting until Wednesday to make these available.

And GOPers wonder why they catch so much shiat about their activities? Well here is yet another reason.

Don't worry if you missed it though, I am sure there will be something new tomorrow.
 
2012-11-03 08:38:54 PM  
So, the issue is that the voter records which form of ID used rather than a poll worker in the event that the voter did not fill in the last 4 digits of their SSN or OH State Driver's License?
 
2012-11-03 08:44:33 PM  

dustman81: I hope the court smacks this down and kicks Husted in the nuts for even trying.


If the judge was appointed by this Governor, there's no chance of that.
 
2012-11-03 08:48:17 PM  
Lemme guess... "Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted" is a Republican who has had this conversation with Romney any company:

Husted: "I might be able rig things to deliver Ohio"

Romney Camp: "That would be awesome"

H: "It's gonna cost. I want Secretary of State"

RC: "OK"
 
2012-11-03 08:48:20 PM  

skullkrusher: So, the issue is that the voter records which form of ID used rather than a poll worker in the event that the voter did not fill in the last 4 digits of their SSN or OH State Driver's License?


No, the issue is that the Ohio Secretary of State made a ruling that is contrary to Ohio law four days before the election. His ruling could have the effect of throwing out thousands of votes because the voters and election officials followed the law.

/Ohioan
 
2012-11-03 08:49:55 PM  

dofus: Lemme guess... "Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted" is a Republican who has had this conversation with Romney any company:

Husted: "I might be able rig things to deliver Ohio"

Romney Camp: "That would be awesome"

H: "It's gonna cost. I want Secretary of State"

RC: "OK"


and here's how we'll do it: by disenfranchising the too-stupid-to-check-a-box demographic, historically a solidly Democratic voting bloc
 
2012-11-03 08:51:42 PM  

L Ron Hubbard's Last Fart: skullkrusher: So, the issue is that the voter records which form of ID used rather than a poll worker in the event that the voter did not fill in the last 4 digits of their SSN or OH State Driver's License?

No, the issue is that the Ohio Secretary of State made a ruling that is contrary to Ohio law four days before the election. His ruling could have the effect of throwing out thousands of votes because the voters and election officials followed the law.

/Ohioan


isn't this form new to the directive? How will it impact previously cast votes?
 
2012-11-03 08:53:34 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-03 08:54:26 PM  
IANAL, but I think that once specific, individual victims who could be proven to have been denied the vote were found, the Ohio Sec'y of State could be brought up on federal charges of violating their civil rights. That's a few years in federal prison. It needs to happen.
 
2012-11-03 08:55:23 PM  

dustman81:

I hope the court smacks this down and kicks Husted in the nuts for even trying.


I would vote for whoever promised to make this a penalty in the federal courts for guys like this, as well as bank execs that cook the books, and douchebags in general.
 
2012-11-03 08:58:21 PM  

skullkrusher: L Ron Hubbard's Last Fart: skullkrusher: So, the issue is that the voter records which form of ID used rather than a poll worker in the event that the voter did not fill in the last 4 digits of their SSN or OH State Driver's License?

No, the issue is that the Ohio Secretary of State made a ruling that is contrary to Ohio law four days before the election. His ruling could have the effect of throwing out thousands of votes because the voters and election officials followed the law.

/Ohioan

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


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.

With this new rule, any ballot that has already been cast provisionally will be rejected. With a single ruling, one person has effectively disenfranchised thousands of people. Hopefully the courts will slap down this bit of idiocy as well.
 
2012-11-03 08:58:56 PM  

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?
 
2012-11-03 09:01:03 PM  

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?

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?
 
2012-11-03 09:02:26 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-03 09:02:29 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?


Think about what this is asking of voters - you need to know your social security number, and if not, you basically need ID to vote. It's an end-around on the ID requirement, because lots of people simply dont know their SS numbers.

But just in general, that's not the point. 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.
 
2012-11-03 09:05:53 PM  

GAT_00: dustman81: I hope the court smacks this down and kicks Husted in the nuts for even trying.

If the judge was appointed by this Governor, there's no chance of that.


Being this an election for federal office (3 of them - President, Senate and House), this will probably go to federal court.
 
2012-11-03 09:06:58 PM  

DamnYankees: Think about what this is asking of voters - you need to know your social security number, and if not, you basically need ID to vote. It's an end-around on the ID requirement, because lots of people simply dont know their SS numbers.


who the fark doesn't know their own SSN? What end around? The only difference is who is checking the box next to the form of ID provided. The ID still needs to be shown.

DamnYankees: But just in general, that's not the point. This is a pointless roadblock who's only reasonable purpose is to disenfranchise voters.


who will this disenfranchise except people who can't check a box? I am being 100% serious here. I am really trying to understand why this is a significant issue in any way.

DamnYankees: 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.


so... you really think that this language telling the person to check the box next to the form of ID provided is in some way an attempt to prevent votes from being counted?
 
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.
 
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.
 
2012-11-03 10:53:02 PM  

skullkrusher: 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.


From the Times Union(linked again, for your pleasure):

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.

Emphasis is mine.

I don't care whether or not you think it's an actual burden. The order is in direct opposition to Ohio law, and, if this rule is upheld, will affect ALL provisional ballots since they are not counted until November 17th.

The rule is new, and the lawsuit was filed today in an attempt to block the rule from taking affect.
 
2012-11-03 10:54:08 PM  

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.


Some early indications it might not even get to Virginia or Ohio as the tipping point state. Florida is still very much in play for Obama and some whispers that their GOTV program in NC is really hitting on all cylinders.
 
2012-11-03 10:54:45 PM  
Provisional ballots are not legal until verified. Hence the word provisional.
 
2012-11-03 10:56:08 PM  

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

Happiness in sodomy indeed


Seemed appropriate.
 
2012-11-03 10:59:25 PM  

austin_millbarge: 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.

Some early indications it might not even get to Virginia or Ohio as the tipping point state. Florida is still very much in play for Obama and some whispers that their GOTV program in NC is really hitting on all cylinders.


Not that I don't believe you but do you have any citations on that? Or at least a couple of compelling anecdotes?

/Doesn't see Florida in the cards this year.
//Though the Fox News "Uh..." moment in 2008 was priceless.
 
2012-11-03 11:00:33 PM  

L Ron Hubbard's Last Fart: I don't care whether or not you think it's an actual burden. The order is in direct opposition to Ohio law, and, if this rule is upheld, will affect ALL provisional ballots since they are not counted until November 17th.

The rule is new, and the lawsuit was filed today in an attempt to block the rule from taking affect.


Technically the rule isn't new, but it was thrown out as illegal in a court decision last week. Then the SoS reissued the same rule in a new directive a week later (Friday).

When you put it like that, it sounds WAY more asinine than just making a stupid rule change. The guy comes across like a petulant child who refuses to admit he was wrong. This ON TOP of the other badness.
 
2012-11-03 11:05:48 PM  

L Ron Hubbard's Last Fart: From the Times Union(linked again, for your pleasure):

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.

Emphasis is mine.


dunno what to tell you, the article is wrong. The form has said that it is the voter's responsibility since January.

"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."

Gonna believe a newspaper article or your lying eyes?
 
2012-11-03 11:07:33 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


Well that's a bit of a simplification. I could be wrong so correct me where I am:

-he pushed a directive a year ago that was ruled on last week (struck down)
-he decides to reissue the directive 4 days before the election forcing another ruling from a different court thus prompting lawsuits from voter rights advocacy group

It's both. This both happened in January and he is pulling a switcheroo by doing it again right before the election. It seems it's well within his authority but also seems to be a clear case of trying to muddy waters.

A last minute attempt to possibly have some standing later for throwing out ballots should this come down to the wire and need decided by recounts / counting of provisional ballots 2 weeks after the election.

For the layman, he is trying his damnest to make some hanging chads.

It's hardly the "nothing to see here / non story" that some here would like it to appear.
But to be completely fair, tfa does a terrible job of explaining this.

Also, as to which ballots get thrown out at the time of counting should he get his way... I'd like to note that no where on that form is there a place to detail the date it was filled/filed. That could be nothing.... or a big deal.
 
2012-11-03 11:07:59 PM  

yukichigai: Technically the rule isn't new, but it was thrown out as illegal in a court decision last week. Then the SoS reissued the same rule in a new directive a week later (Friday).

When you put it like that, it sounds WAY more asinine than just making a stupid rule change. The guy comes across like a petulant child who refuses to admit he was wrong. This ON TOP of the other badness.


I think the court ruling pertains to tossing ballots which don't have the ID properly identified - not whether the voter or a poll worker must complete the form though that appears contrary to the letter of the law
 
2012-11-03 11:08:48 PM  

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


Any chance a judge could tell him to "FU" before Tuesday?
 
2012-11-03 11:10:01 PM  

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


A legal burden is not the same thing as a physical burden, or even an imposition. It refers to who has a responsibility to do something.

Putting all of the responsibility on voters who are probably not familiar with the provisional form to fill everything out perfectly, and refusing to count their votes if there is even the slightest mistake, is a recipie for denying legal voters their voice in government.

But somehow, I think you knew that already.
 
2012-11-03 11:10:23 PM  

MurphyMurphy: It's both. This both happened in January and he is pulling a switcheroo by doing it again right before the election. It seems it's well within his authority but also seems to be a clear case of trying to muddy waters.

A last minute attempt to possibly have some standing later for throwing out ballots should this come down to the wire and need decided by recounts / counting of provisional ballots 2 weeks after the election.


I don't see any meaningful differences between January's directive and Friday's. I think he's just trying to reaffirm the procedure to ensure uniformity while these court cases are pending so that all districts handle it the same way.

I *think* his administration is appealing the ruling but it's a big mess to figure this shiat out
 
2012-11-03 11:10:26 PM  

MurphyMurphy: It seems it's well within his authority


I worded that poorly.
Maybe "he seems to think it's well within his authority"
or
"courts will decide whether this is within his authority"
 
2012-11-03 11:10:57 PM  

skullkrusher: 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?


READ THIS, STUPID.

the directive you are quoting was declared illegal. If the NEW directive does not change its wording then that is not legal either.

Get it now? Anyone in there?
 
2012-11-03 11:11:05 PM  

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

Any chance a judge could tell him to "FU" before Tuesday?


he is supposed to respond to the lawsuit by Monday so... yes?
 
2012-11-03 11:12:14 PM  

gaspode: skullkrusher: 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?

READ THIS, STUPID.

the directive you are quoting was declared illegal. If the NEW directive does not change its wording then that is not legal either.

Get it now? Anyone in there?


which is utterly unlike what has been said throughout this discussion up until recently. This is why the outrage didn't make any sense - because people were pretending to be outraged at shiat that didn't farking happen. OK, "STUPID"?
 
2012-11-03 11:14:50 PM  

skullkrusher: MurphyMurphy: It's both. This both happened in January and he is pulling a switcheroo by doing it again right before the election. It seems it's well within his authority but also seems to be a clear case of trying to muddy waters.

A last minute attempt to possibly have some standing later for throwing out ballots should this come down to the wire and need decided by recounts / counting of provisional ballots 2 weeks after the election.

I don't see any meaningful differences between January's directive and Friday's. I think he's just trying to reaffirm the procedure to ensure uniformity while these court cases are pending so that all districts handle it the same way.

I *think* his administration is appealing the ruling but it's a big mess to figure this shiat out


I think his actions on Friday are their way of "appealing" it? If that's what one wants to call it. Another might just say they are ignoring the last court ruling.

I think it goes a bit beyond clarification, more insistence and again, kicking the waters up to muddy them a bit.

I can't seem to find enough info on this to be able to tell for certain.

One thing is for certain, if this does all come down to Ohio, which I doubt it will... odds are increasing that we will have another President selected by a court.
 
2012-11-03 11:19:50 PM  

MurphyMurphy: One thing is for certain, if this does all come down to Ohio, which I doubt it will... odds are increasing that we will have another President selected by a court.


Oct. 22: Ohio Has 50-50 Chance of Deciding Election
 
2012-11-03 11:24:09 PM  

skullkrusher: yukichigai: Technically the rule isn't new, but it was thrown out as illegal in a court decision last week. Then the SoS reissued the same rule in a new directive a week later (Friday).

When you put it like that, it sounds WAY more asinine than just making a stupid rule change. The guy comes across like a petulant child who refuses to admit he was wrong. This ON TOP of the other badness.

I think the court ruling pertains to tossing ballots which don't have the ID properly identified - not whether the voter or a poll worker must complete the form though that appears contrary to the letter of the law


Oh.. heh, LRHLF was talking about the other thing. Thought he was talking about the voter form requirement. Meh, point still stands, makes the SoS look pretty petulant.
 
2012-11-03 11:30:14 PM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: MurphyMurphy: One thing is for certain, if this does all come down to Ohio, which I doubt it will... odds are increasing that we will have another President selected by a court.

Oct. 22: Ohio Has 50-50 Chance of Deciding Election


It sure can, I'm not sure if the odds are as clean as 50/50 (but they might as well be)

That's the beauty of words like doubt, confident, believe... they are all based on whim and faith and not math which is wickedly complicated and suspect in regards to election fortune telling. And it increases seemingly logarithmically in it's complexity and suspicion as we approach the decision itself.

Like some logic machine grinding beyond it's engineered ability until it spits out some nonsense number that seems impossibly simple and must be incorrect. That all the thousands and millions of input somehow could possibly result in "42"... or "Bush wins by 500 votes"

I find in times when everyone is placing their trust in faith, it's best to place mine in math and science.
And in times when you find everyone placing their trust in math and science, your best off running on faith.

:P
 
2012-11-03 11:42:17 PM  
Frankly, I don't care whether the policy at issue here is intended to disenfranchise anyone. The bottom line is that the SecState dared to violate the clear text of a controlling statute, even after a judge told him to quit. Regardless of whether the asshole intended to disenfranchise anyone (hint: he did), the bottom line is that he has shown a deep and abiding contempt for the rule of law - the very law that he, as a member of the executive branch of government, has sworn to uphold.

So, yeah - fark that guy.
 
2012-11-03 11:48:08 PM  

The Great EZE: austin_millbarge: 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.

Some early indications it might not even get to Virginia or Ohio as the tipping point state. Florida is still very much in play for Obama and some whispers that their GOTV program in NC is really hitting on all cylinders.

Not that I don't believe you but do you have any citations on that? Or at least a couple of compelling anecdotes?

/Doesn't see Florida in the cards this year.
//Though the Fox News "Uh..." moment in 2008 was priceless.


I've read a few articles online this weekend that indicate NC and FLA early voting favors O very heavily.
It's late and I'm too tired to go back and try to find them. It's not worth betting the house on but i found it interesting nonetheless.
 
2012-11-03 11:52:28 PM  
Traitors fighting against American citizens.

Beat the shiat out of them.
 
2012-11-04 12:10:10 AM  

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



Please do not associate one of my favorite bands with Fark Politics, lest you make me sad.

 
 
2012-11-04 12:10:19 AM  
"These ballots have been hermetically sealed inside a mayonnaise jar underneath Funk & Wagnalls' porch since noon today" 

-Ed McMahon
 
2012-11-04 12:22:01 AM  
Invade Ohio, leave no prisoners, give no quarter, destroy them.
 
2012-11-04 12:23:56 AM  

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


Burden or not, it's against Ohio law (which specifies that the election official at the polling place fills in the appropriate part of the form). Why do you hate obeying the law?
 
2012-11-04 12:29:05 AM  

MurphyMurphy: I find in times when everyone is placing their trust in faith, it's best to place mine in math and science.
And in times when you find everyone placing their trust in math and science, your best off running on faith.

:P


While that's a nice soundbyte,

a) statistics != math, necessarily. Statistics mean jack shiat unless the methodology used to obtain them is explicit. While math is integral, unless you adequately explain the methodology used to obtain your numbers, standard deviations, etc., it means abso-effing-lutely nothing. *
b) Unless you have something with a standard deviation of exactly 0, statistical projections are just that - projections.
c) Elections are a one time event. If you toss a penny a 100 times, there's a chance you could end up with all tails - but the more and more you do it, the closer and closer it's going to get to being 50-50. Stats in elections are a forecast, nothing more.
d) However, the electoral college allocations per state *is* fact, and math is math, and I'll put my faith in math everytime. If by faith you mean "it's freaking math, and the math checks out"

imgs.xkcd.com

* My stats teacher in high school was a Marine. Not only did he very effectively drill stats and how to interpret them into our heads *very* well, I can no longer look at a USA Today without getting stabby. Thanks, Mr. D!
 
2012-11-04 12:32:48 AM  

skullkrusher: 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


Okay, simple question: this new directive is in direct contravention to Ohio law and a court decree. Whether or not you view it as a burden, do you agree that the Ohio Secretary of State should comply with Ohio election law?
 
2012-11-04 12:52:14 AM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: MurphyMurphy: I find in times when everyone is placing their trust in faith, it's best to place mine in math and science.
And in times when you find everyone placing their trust in math and science, your best off running on faith.

:P

While that's a nice soundbyte,

a) statistics != math, necessarily. Statistics mean jack shiat unless the methodology used to obtain them is explicit. While math is integral, unless you adequately explain the methodology used to obtain your numbers, standard deviations, etc., it means abso-effing-lutely nothing. *
b) Unless you have something with a standard deviation of exactly 0, statistical projections are just that - projections.
c) Elections are a one time event. If you toss a penny a 100 times, there's a chance you could end up with all tails - but the more and more you do it, the closer and closer it's going to get to being 50-50. Stats in elections are a forecast, nothing more.
d) However, the electoral college allocations per state *is* fact, and math is math, and I'll put my faith in math everytime. If by faith you mean "it's freaking math, and the math checks out"

[imgs.xkcd.com image 740x308]

* My stats teacher in high school was a Marine. Not only did he very effectively drill stats and how to interpret them into our heads *very* well, I can no longer look at a USA Today without getting stabby. Thanks, Mr. D!



If you are a fan of that picture, then I'm sure you also know this one:
img708.imageshack.us
Philosophers are all sound bites.

That said, I'm a man of science. I wasn't saying I have no faith in math.

99/100 I'll choose the science. But to call polling and all the legal shenanigans that occur in a national election a science is just a bit iffy. But we call lots of things science so it's acceptable.

To presume because you're using science and math to make a prediction that your prediction is anything but a guess is what I laugh at. And I don't think you fall into that category. It's one thing to say "hey, there is an 80% chance of this happening". One person, maybe you, maybe me.. will say "yes, that has an 80% chance of happening". And we will understand what that means.

Others will say "hey, it's an 80% chance... this is a sure thing" and completely let it fly over their head exactly the difference between a chance and a done deal.

So when everyone and their brother that usually pay no attention to actual math and science start pointing to data and projections as if they even understand them and presume to use them as proof of their own personal opinions. I laugh. At that point the math all means jack all. That is what my "soundbyte" means.

There is a science to the process and the projections are made on reasonably sound math. But everything from presumed margins of error based on historical performance to the fundamental flaws and assumptions made in every poll taken gives doubt.

That some then stack these shaky numbers on top of each other many and try to attribute a final analysis is nothing more than a castle built on sand. It's good for a rough idea, but that is all. Like you said, a projection.

It doesn't mean I'm disavowing the math or the science that made the projection, it's that I actually understand it's nothing more than just that. Interesting to look at, but I won't use it to presume outcome. All you need to do is look at the many many times when the projections pointed one way and the reality went a different direction entirely.

Because, as we know, mathematical approximations and scientific theories are great until reality comes along and shows them differently. Then we make new ones.
 
2012-11-04 12:57:23 AM  

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


Please do not associate one of my favorite bands with Fark Politics, lest you make me sad.


My bad, I love Tool as well; it was a highly appropriate and apolitical usage.

Or I could just go with:

Come down get off your farkin' cross, we need the farking space to nail the next fool martyr.
 
2012-11-04 01:10:22 AM  

Lord Dimwit: skullkrusher: 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

Okay, simple question: this new directive is in direct contravention to Ohio law and a court decree. Whether or not you view it as a burden, do you agree that the Ohio Secretary of State should comply with Ohio election law?


sure he should but the case is ongoing as it is in appeals court. That said, barring an injunction against the prior ruling pending the outcome of the appeal (not sure if this exists) he shouldn't issue directives which contravene current court rulings. In the end, the case in question is about whether they can toss ballots that are incorrectly filled out, not whether a voter or poll worker should check a box.

This isn't the election rigging you're looking for
 
2012-11-04 01:12:28 AM  

skullkrusher: I am trying to figure out the issue here. Seriously, this is the GOP rigging the election in Ohio?


No, this is the GOP waving its hands and shouting "look at me!!!" to provide cover for the other squad who are quietly applying secret last-minute software patches to the electronic vote-tabulating systems.
 
2012-11-04 01:13:59 AM  
Said it before and I'll say it again, Husted needs to have a broomstick broken off in his ass, and then be thrown in prison where inmates can push that broomstick further up his colon.

I hope that Obama wins Ohio despite all of these illegal efforts to steal the election for Romney.....then there are tons of investigations into Ohio and a bunch of republicans end up in prison and it's made well known that they tried to steal the election. And several other people end up with broomsticks broken off in their asses as well.
 
2012-11-04 01:40:20 AM  

skullkrusher: This isn't the election rigging you're looking for


Well if it's not rigging it's certainly engineering.

And as a once upon a time mechanic I can tell you, there is often no daylight between those terms.

The guy isn't simultaneously doing nothing and something at the same time. No matter how much the current (R) party would like to exist in quantum flux on almost every topic.
 
2012-11-04 02:02:05 AM  

Blue_Blazer: My bad, I love Tool as well; it was a highly appropriate and apolitical usage.


I got it :) I just...

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


Please do not associate one of my favorite bands with Fark Politics, lest you make me sad.

My bad, I love Tool as well; it was a highly appropriate and apolitical usage.

Or I could just go with:

Come down get off your farkin' cross, we need the farking space to nail the next fool martyr.



Excellent.
 
2012-11-04 02:12:13 AM  

austin_millbarge: The Great EZE: austin_millbarge: 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.

Some early indications it might not even get to Virginia or Ohio as the tipping point state. Florida is still very much in play for Obama and some whispers that their GOTV program in NC is really hitting on all cylinders.

Not that I don't believe you but do you have any citations on that? Or at least a couple of compelling anecdotes?

/Doesn't see Florida in the cards this year.
//Though the Fox News "Uh..." moment in 2008 was priceless.

I've read a few articles online this weekend that indicate NC and FLA early voting favors O very heavily.
It's late and I'm too tired to go back and try to find them. It's not worth betting the house on but i found it interesting nonetheless.


Even my Florida GOP facebook friends were posting data about how Florida early voting turnout is skewing democratic by a fairly decent margin. One thing I saw estimated that given the early voting party disparity, Romney would have to get 55% of the votes cast on election day in order to win Florida, and I just don't see that happening.
 
2012-11-04 02:33:04 AM  
Please move forward to the front of the line to collect your tinfoil hat and jar of self-importance.
 
2012-11-04 02:37:26 AM  
I was hoping there was an actual leopard guarding the box. Oh well.
 
2012-11-04 04:10:55 AM  
The more I read about U.S. elections, U.S. electoral law and what certain parties do to influence the outcome in their favor, the more the U.S. reminds me of certain "democratic" states in the former U.S.S.R.
 
2012-11-04 04:21:41 AM  

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.


OK you guys are really starting to scare me. I voted for Obama via absentee ballot about a week ago. I provided both my Ohio DL # and the last 4 of my SS #. Yes, the form is filled out correctly. Is there some way that ass Husted can invalidate my vote? It's bad enough that Hamilton County (Cincinnati) has the damned voting machines that one of Romney's companies owns and now this...
 
2012-11-04 04:24:11 AM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: 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 re ...


Damn... I put my Ohio DL# and last 4 of my SS#. Do you seriously think they will toss my vote over that?

Some heads need to roll over this.
 
2012-11-04 04:30:42 AM  

turbocucumber: The more I read about U.S. elections, U.S. electoral law and what certain parties do to influence the outcome in their favor, the more the U.S. reminds me of certain "democratic" states in the former U.S.S.R.


Great analysis. I'm sure you have personal examples of other countries with better election processes right?
 
2012-11-04 08:27:36 AM  

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


If you don't see the point of it then perhaps you should ask yourself why it is so important that the Ohio SoS is rolling it out in a hurry three days before the election.

Best case (least corrupt) scenario: this law neeedlessly creates two sets of acceptance criteria for ballots. If you think that counting ballots to two standards, one of which was introduced a few days before the election, won't result in counting errors then I've got a bridge to sell you.
 
2012-11-04 08:40:51 AM  

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


Many of these provisional ballots have already been submitted, right? So, this decision invalidates the ballots of people who now have no chance to set things right.
 
2012-11-04 08:45:36 AM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: Please move forward to the front of the line to collect your tinfoil hat and jar of self-importance.


So, getting one's vote counted is not important?
 
2012-11-04 10:39:21 AM  
I hope Hustad is developing ulcers from his anti-democracy hijinxs. I somehow doubt he has the requisite conscience, but one can hope.

/also DIAF
 
2012-11-04 11:32:40 AM  

Soulcatcher: 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.

OK you guys are really starting to scare me. I voted for Obama via absentee ballot about a week ago. I provided both my Ohio DL # and the last 4 of my SS #. Yes, the form is filled out correctly. Is there some way that ass Husted can invalidate my vote? It's bad enough that Hamilton County (Cincinnati) has the damned voting machines that one of Romney's companies owns and now this...


Absentee ballots are treated differently than provisional ballots, and are not affected at all by this ruling. Unless some additional shenanigans come up, your vote is safe and will be counted on election day.
 
2012-11-04 11:53:58 AM  
Why do people even bother explaining this to the trolls who pretend to not understand that changing voting rules 3 days before the election, on a Sunday, is wrong? They're farking retards and not worth your time or effort. If it matters to you so much, you should be calling your local campaign office and asking how you can help them get more people to the polls.
 
2012-11-04 12:49:48 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Traitors fighting against American citizens.

Beat the shiat out of them.

 
2012-11-06 02:51:16 AM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: turbocucumber: The more I read about U.S. elections, U.S. electoral law and what certain parties do to influence the outcome in their favor, the more the U.S. reminds me of certain "democratic" states in the former U.S.S.R.

Great analysis. I'm sure you have personal examples of other countries with better election processes right?


It's not the election process as such, although it's a rather antiquated one, I think. After all, it comes from the times of the founding of the U.S., and could maybe stand some modernization. I was thinking of the chaos in 2000, last minute changes in election rules like in the article simply meant to invalidate votes, and changes to voting laws clearly designed to prevent certain groups of people from voting. Then there was the discussion about the design of the ballots a few years ago, and the neverending story about voting machines. The U.S. are the only country I know of which uses voting machines, and it leads to discussions every time.

All this is not really worthy of a nation who is so proud of it's old democracy, I think.
 
Displayed 201 of 201 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report