How Blatant Can They Get About Suppressing the Democratic Vote?

[paft.livejournal.com]

Pretty damned blatant.

If you live in a predominantly Democratic district in Ohio, it looks as though you’re not going to have the same access to early voting as you would if you lived in a predominantly Republican district.

From the Cincinnnati Enquirer:

In Southwest Ohio, elections boards in traditionally Republican Butler and Warren counties have approved special night and weekend voting hours from early October through Nov. 1. Because Democrats did not oppose the idea, there were no tie votes to submit to (Secretary of State, John) Husted, leaving those early voting plans intact.

Husted spokesman Matt McClellan said the secretary of state will not intervene in those counties.

“Local boards of elections can set their own hours for early voting if they can agree on it,” McClellan said.

Only in cases where boards’ tie votes give him a decisive voice, McClellan added, will Husted move to block extra voting hours…

And he has consistently done this. The result? More voting hours will be available to residents of predominantly Republican districts, less to residents of predominantly Democratic districts.



Funny how it works out that way.

Ohio, you may remember, was the state where, among other things, insanely long lines on election day in 2004 led to thousands of potential voters in Democratic districts giving up and leaving without casting their ballots.

From The Washington Post:

...In her city neighborhood, which is vastly Democratic and majority black, the 38-year-old mortgage broker found a line snaking out of the precinct door.

She stood in line for four hours -- one hour in the rain -- and watched dozens of potential voters mutter in disgust and walk away without casting a ballot. Afterward, Thivener hopped in her car and drove to her mother's house, in the vastly Republican and majority white suburb of Harrisburg. How long, she asked, did it take her to vote?

Fifteen minutes, her mother replied…

The Republicans want more of that. After all, Ohio responded to the 2004 voting debacle by expanding early voting for everyone and look what happened! Four years later, Democratic voters actually got to cast their ballots and elect the president they wanted.

The GOP in Ohio has made it plain they aren’t going to stand for that again.

Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes

Comments

[telemann.livejournal.com]

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

Because Democrats did not oppose the idea, there were no tie votes to submit

Aaaand... scene. If Democrats had opposed the plan and Husted had voted to expand hours in GOP districts, while denying it do Democratic districts, then you would have a real problem and I'd be with you. But, you don't.

[paft.livejournal.com]

How is it not a problem that people in Democratic districts will have less access to the vote than people in Republican districts?

The Democrats are essentially being penalized for behaving in a principled manner and not trying to restrict access in Republican districts.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

Talk to the people who wrote the Ohio voting laws that way.

I don't think being for expanded voting hours is a necessarily principled position. I'd be against expanded voting hours, even in this semi heavily Republican district.

Look, frankly, this is all really, really stupid. You can either show up on election day and wait and vote like any schmoe, or you can shag your ass over to the Post Office and pick up a absentee/early voting ballot, fill it out and mail it in. Democrats in those districts with "non-expanded" hours have between right now and whenever they stop handing out those ballots in Ohio. The bar for voting is absurdly low. If you can't find a way to vote, I have almost no sympathy for you.

[ja-va.livejournal.com]

My guess is - if one is a Republican then it is not "a problem", it is "a solution" ;)

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

> Aaaand... scene.

Aaaannndd Not.

If Democrats had opposed extended voting hours in republican strongholds, this could easily be interpreted as tactical partisan silliness on both sides.

But because Democrats DID NOT oppose extended hours for Republican strongholds, its far more arguable that this is a matter of principle on the democratic side. Because some republicans DID vote for extended hours in some jurisdictions, yet opposed them in others, they are not responding to any party-wide principle or sentiment, but are instead responding tactically to extend where it is politically useful, and oppose where it is not.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

Politicians acting politically?

Color me shocked.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

In Southwest Ohio, elections boards in traditionally Republican Butler and Warren counties have approved special night and weekend voting hours from early October through Nov. 1. Because Democrats did not oppose the idea, there were no tie votes to submit to (Secretary of State, John) Husted, leaving those early voting plans intact.

^Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it have been smarter to oppose this idea when it was initially adopted instead of only waking up to reality after the fact? But I forget, if Democrats make elementary political mistakes this is all part of the big conspiracy against them.

[paft.livejournal.com]

U: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it have been smarter to oppose this idea when it was initially adopted instead of only waking up to reality after the fact? But I forget, if Democrats make elementary political mistakes this is all part of the big conspiracy against them.

Right. Blame the victim.

Democrats are in principle in favor of expanding access to the vote. That the Democrats on these election boards have more principle than the Republicans on those other boards is to their credit.

And let's face it. If the Democrats in those Republican districts had voted against expanding access, you'd likely be pointing to that as an example of "they all do it."

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

1) The Democrats had a chance to vote against it, and they didn't do a damn thing. If you do nothing and the other side exploits that the way it was always going to do, that's stupidity. I don't excuse stupidity, that you do is one reason the Democrats tend to do badly in national elections.

2) No, actually, I wouldn't be. That you're using ad hominem is a fine demonstration, however, of the ordinary contours of "discussion" with you. I simply noted that the Democrats could have actually done something and they did not and only now when the GOP is abusing what the Dems gave them the chance to do they realized what they should all along have done. They should have voted no, and instead they DID NOT OPPOSE IT. You did see that line there, yes?

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it have been smarter to oppose this idea when it was initially adopted instead of only waking up to reality after the fact?

You're wrong because you're making several assumptions at once. And ironically you turn what should be a plus (a very non-partisan move by Democratic elections board members in mostly Republican districts - allowing more opportunities to vote in an election, even if it doesn't help your own party's candidates) into a negative.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

At this rate, if Democrats sincerely viewed the GOP as prone to election fraud, they have only themselves to blame for not voting at all and then discovering that the GOP has no such scruples. Politics is an ugly business, if only one side does the ugliness, that side will run circles all around the other.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

> And ironically you turn what should be a plus (a very non-partisan move by Democratic elections board members
> in mostly Republican districts - allowing more opportunities to vote in an election, even if it doesn't help your own
> party's candidates) into a negative.

And the lesson is to democrats... Oppose Republicans in everything, everywhere, regardless of Principle, else they will screw you.

And we wonder why politics have become more partisan and polarized?

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

The problem is that the Democrats are trying to do the same thing in Cincinnati and the Republicans on the election board are blocking it.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

There's a lawsuit currently being filed to allow that early access for those other districts.

Currently the military is still allowed to vote early (through absentee ballot) and if someone were playing semantic games, they might say that EXPANDING early voting is taking away the "special" privilege that the military gets.

So that's exactly what Republicans are doing. The ACLJ and others are now loudly claiming that Democrats are trying to "keep military people from voting." Which is complete bullshit, but hey, that's never stopped them before.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

From the article:

I must also keep in mind the resources available to each county.

- Jon Husted, Ohio Secretary of State


If ballot access and the expenses thereof are laid at the feet of smaller political divisions within states (Cities, counties, etc.), won't this inevitably lead to preferred access in affluent areas, and inadequate access in poorer ones?

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Ding, ding, ding!

[merig00.livejournal.com]

Anything about democrats (I believe it was DNC and OFA) filing lawsuit against military being allowed to vote two day longer than general public? :D

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

Oh, you mean in the state where Republicans ripped that privilege away from everyone except the military, and are now caterwauling about Democratic voter suppression like they got religion on the road to Damascus? :/

[paft.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah, you mean that lawsuit where the DNC and the OFA are trying, not to take that extra voting time from the military, but to extend it to everyone else?

You really shouldn't believe everything you hear on Fox News.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

You really shouldn't believe ANYTHING you hear on Fox News.

(fixed)

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

Yeah, we all have to vote on the same day because, well, that's how we've been doing it for centuries. Unfortunately the population is much larger and faster-paced so the subsequent logistics are much more involved. We need to devise 21st century solutions to elections. We can't do this if we can't get past step one which is expanding the available time to vote. If you still want to do things the old-fashioned way, why not have citizens drop black or white stones into a bowl like they did 2000 years ago.

We should make voting as easy as buying something online. Short of that, here are some (not necessarily good) ideas:

Have an election weekend where polling places operate Friday through Sunday.
Distribute a mail-in machine-readable ballot to every voter as an alternative to physically appearing.
Open up "election cafes" assigning an election official to businesses where there are wi-fi hotspots to electronically cast votes.

[paft.livejournal.com]

You what strikes me as I look over this thread? In the past, apologists for the GOP have responded to the issue of GOP voter suppression by denying it exists.

Now, faced with an example of Republicans doing that very thing, they're reduced to claiming that the Democrats acting on principle is a BAD thing, a sign of stupidity and weakness.

And up is down and red is green and freedom is slavery...

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

You're calling *me* an apologist for the Republican Party? Oh, please. I am not anything of the sort. What I am in favor of is effective politics, which the Dems are not exemplars of in any rational view of the world. Principle is for losers in elections, realpolitik is a dirty, nasty business. The Dems can be doomed moral victors and refuse to do basic politics all they like. When the GOP is turning the USA into Iran for Jebus, complete with outlawing homosexuality, massed parades of armed soldiers with giant Freudian symbols-er missiles, and the Department for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, then they'll wake up to the reality that they should have fucking done basic politics instead of whining about the other guys winning and refusing to emulate methods that actually worked.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

The Republican party has lost control. It has been taken over by reactionaries and rubes. Quite a fall from the party of Lincoln.

Interestingly, the "lamestream" media refuses to report this and the only place it's called out is on comedy shows.