Court OKs voter challengers at Ohio polls
By a 2 to 1 last minute vote, a three judge panel of the US 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has let stand an Ohio law allowing additional partisan voter challengers at Ohio polls. The Democrats should have legally challenged the Ohio law earlier, so that the case could have beeen decided by the US Supreme Court well ahead of this election. Having a national ruling would be better for the electoral process, even if the Supremes had voted 5-4 to allow challengers.
I don't understand why there would be a legitimate need for such a law in the first place. As I understand it, there are official partisan poll watchers already under local election laws. Why does there need to be even more? According to the news article linked below, the additional challengers will be using materials such as a list of absentee voters and recent deaths to see if a voter should be challenged. But why not just give that list to the exiting partisan poll watcher? Supposedly the answer is that having an extra person involved will be greater protection against fraud. But I agree with the trial judge who said the delays and confusion caused will intimidate and discourage legitimate voters to such an extent as to outweigh the chance of maybe catching a couple of frauds.
As a practical matter, the new challengers will have to speak only to the existing watchers, who then will decide whether to challenge. If the challenged voter proves entitlement (e.g. proof of age, residency, citizenship) then the vote will be allowed, but if proof is not immediately forthcoming, then a provisional ballot can be cast and held for later determination. One certain impact will be voter delays. Another likely one will be intimidation and discouragement of some voters. This will occur mostly in inner city, minority Democrat areas. Granted, the Democrats could return the favor in WASP suburbs, but the fact is that the Democratioc lines will be much longer to begin with and the Democratic voters more susceptible to intimidation historically. I just hope this late news will produce a backlash and make even more Democrats show up at the polls.
Seattle Post-Intelligencer: AP - Elections: Court OKs voter challengers at Ohio polls
I don't understand why there would be a legitimate need for such a law in the first place. As I understand it, there are official partisan poll watchers already under local election laws. Why does there need to be even more? According to the news article linked below, the additional challengers will be using materials such as a list of absentee voters and recent deaths to see if a voter should be challenged. But why not just give that list to the exiting partisan poll watcher? Supposedly the answer is that having an extra person involved will be greater protection against fraud. But I agree with the trial judge who said the delays and confusion caused will intimidate and discourage legitimate voters to such an extent as to outweigh the chance of maybe catching a couple of frauds.
As a practical matter, the new challengers will have to speak only to the existing watchers, who then will decide whether to challenge. If the challenged voter proves entitlement (e.g. proof of age, residency, citizenship) then the vote will be allowed, but if proof is not immediately forthcoming, then a provisional ballot can be cast and held for later determination. One certain impact will be voter delays. Another likely one will be intimidation and discouragement of some voters. This will occur mostly in inner city, minority Democrat areas. Granted, the Democrats could return the favor in WASP suburbs, but the fact is that the Democratioc lines will be much longer to begin with and the Democratic voters more susceptible to intimidation historically. I just hope this late news will produce a backlash and make even more Democrats show up at the polls.
Seattle Post-Intelligencer: AP - Elections: Court OKs voter challengers at Ohio polls
posted by Tom Blake | 8:56 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home