Posted: November 7, 2012
Summary of Ohio provisional ballot case hearing
Judge Algenon Marbley heard the plaintiffs’ motion in SEIU v. Husted for clarification and modification of the consent decree. The NEOCH and SEIU plaintiffs argued that the relief they requested was within the scope of the court’s authority under paragraph III(b)(vii) of the consent decree. Further, the plaintiffs argued for modification of the consent decree because under the Secretary of State’s Directive 2012-54, provisional voters that provide the last four digits of their social security number are treated differently than voters that provide other forms of identification. At Judge Marbley’s request, the state offered its explanation for how the Directive complies with Ohio law, particularly the assignment of responsibility for recording voter identification information. Additionally, Judge Marbley expressed that it seemed clear the Directive violates Ohio law and that the timing of the issuance of the Directive gave him “great pause and great concern.” The plaintiffs' reply memoranda are due to the court tomorrow, November 8, and Judge Marbley expects to issue a ruling by Monday at the latest.
PDF files in this site require
Commentary
Silence of the Lambs
Dale A. Oesterle
With the election of 2012 now well over and past the second inauguration of the incumbent President, the historical analysis of the events has begun and will last as long as written human history lasts. An interesting tidbit may already be lost to the majesty of the moment.
The voters of three very different states, Alaska, New Hampshire, and Ohio, all had an opportunity to call state constitutional conventions. In each state the voters turned the opportunity down by very similar votes, 68%, 64% and 68% respectively against.
more commentary...