I guess he didn't want to be held in contempt of a Federal court. Federal judges don't play around.

Was with him until he retired from the bench.



Yes.

They do not mess around.

Judges ruling up Held!!!!!


But this is great news. see these asshats just need to know who's boss

And then tender his resignation effective IMMEDIATELY and request the next Secretary of State to be a Democrat or Jennifer Brunner.

Until then, I'm not satisfied that Husted has met the requirements.

along with Florida and Texas this week.

Next stop, Pennsylvania!

But he still has to PERSONALLY attend the September 13th hearing until otherwise noted.

Husted still has to reinstate the two commiteemen he fired and then resign himself in order to meet the requirements.

Do you have a link?

Until the court rescinds the order, the requirement to show up for the hearing is still valid.

Here is the order:

Motion Hearing set for 9/13/2012 @ 10:00 AM before Senior Judge Peter C Economus. The Court ORDERS that Defendant Secretary of State Jon Husted personally attend the hearing.

Until the hearing is cancelled or otherwise stated.....

Does Husted have to answer to that at the hearing?

But it would be the logical thing to do to avoid a major lawsuit.

And exposing the Republicans to its explusion from the Ohio slate.

I like the sound of that.

will get your attention.

The attempts at voter suppression are odious.

--imm

and throw his ass in jail for a few days. It will do wonders as an example.

Glad you're here! We're gonna need you! Got an election to win!





Now get to work.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="

Jeff Lynne and George Harrison!

I love all the Traveling Wilburys stuff.

And Dylan's in it, too!

The fight isn't over.

He is fixing to steal this election and we need to keep on our toes to prevent it.

Cause that is just one way to steal it...he has others.

Just assume that as a default position. If they have an "r" by their name, they truly, genuinely, CANNOT be trusted. There are exceptions but not in the corridors of power.

or will R election officials in D-heavy counties still be able to restrict early voting if they want? Wasn't the problem that there are 2 D and 2 R officials in each county, and that the Ds voted for extending hours in D-heavy counties while the rs voted against, with the Ohio AG breaking the tie by voting "no" with the Rs? Has that now changed? What happens if there's still a 2-2 split in a county?

Rural parts of Ohio had the same # of voting machines at their voting places as they did in downtown Cleveland or Columbus. The idea was that if they gridlocked the voting machines and created long lines some voters would get discouraged and go home.

Unless the judge orders Husted to issue a blanket vote with the Democrats on local election boards (which is how ties are broken), Republicans can still deadlock with 2 - 2 votes. By simply doing "nothing" Husted can still block early voting.

This isn't 1940. We killed off old Jim Crow decades ago and NO ONE wants to exhume those crazy times every again!

So then we have to look at the knuckleheads who vote these assholes IN. Probably low-information voters and loyal Pox Noise viewers.

Boom!

This is a major victory for Democracy!

now if they just put enough voting machines in heavily populated
urban areas and on campuses, Ohio maybe will have a fair election
after all.

This is super-good newz.

But what changed your mind, Husted? Did you get turned away at the Canadian border?


rocktivity

There are so many states doing this, hard to keep track of them. If it was Ohio, I hope those guys get rehired.

I'm an election judge in Illinois, so making sure people can vote without hassle, no matter their party, is one of my concerns.

Kansas, where our Secretary of State lead the charge to require ID at the polling booths, should be next.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who'd like to beat on him.

First, let me once again note that there is no chance that Husted was going to be held in contempt, fined, jailed or otherwise sanctioned for issuing the directive telling local boards not to set early voting hours for the 3 days preceding election day. The order didn't have a specific deadline for him to comply and even the Obama administration's motion seeking an order directing him to establish an early voting schedule didn't ask for sanctions. If someone knows of a case where sanctions such as contempt were imposed in a comparable situation, I'd be surprised.

Second, let's compare where we are today as compared to yesterday. Yesterday Husted's position was that he wouldn't issue directions for early voting for the three days preceding election day unless and until the Court of Appeals ruled in the state's appeal of the district court decision. In response to a motion by the administration challenging Husted's action in not acting, the court set a deadline for Husted to respond in writing, scheduled a hearing, and directed Husted to appear -- presumably to answer questions about the factual issues presented.

Today, Husted has rescinded his order and formally asked the court to grant a stay of its order pending resolution of the appeal. The court has given the administration until Monday to respond to stay request. As far as I know the hearing is still going to take place. In the meantime, there is nothing to prevent individual local boards to set a schedule for voting for the three days. That schedule could allow one hour a day, so long as its uniformly applied to all voters. The better solution is one set of hours for all voters in all parts of the state. Eventually, assuming (as I hope is the case) that the district court order is affirmed by the appeals court, that will happen. BUt at this point, it wouldn't shock me if the district court let Husted do nothing until the appeals court acts. I hope not, but this is far from over.

maybe Ohioans should start mobilizing to get out the vote on Election Day or get absentee ballots to people who can't make it. Early voting is nice, but I'm sick of people who don't vote because they don't care enough to work around whatever obstacles the Repugs throw in their way. Can't everyone and those churches go to vote the weekend one week before the election and pretend it's the weekend right before Election Day? That said. IDs, list purges, not enough voting machines, and other voter suppression techniques are another story.

Why in the hell are people electing Republicans and expecting them to act like stand up guys and girle? Grow up. Get to the polls. Too many people fought for this right for people to get all wussy.

intend to refuse to comply with a court order.


If Husted had stated, as he did here, that he was going to refuse a court order then he would have been put into contempt, even if the deadline for action had not yet happened.

You can be put in contempt of court for the way you dress, or speak in court, it doesn't require an action.

If Husted thought that the order would not be upheld by the appeals court then the only legal alternative for him is to get a stay. Absence an order from a court staying this court's order then any elected official must follow the order of a court. Issuing a directive to not comply with the court based on your perception of a future action by another court is still showing contempt for this court.

He would have been found in contempt of court.

He knows it and that is why he folded absence a stay he definitely would have been found in contempt (although not necessarily held in custody).

Again contempt of court does not require a deadline to be passed but simply the intention not to follow an order, if he had so stated that in court he would have been charged with contempt.

I'd be interested in seeing it.

The fact that judge's have enormous discretion to issue contempt citations is true. But the idea that a federal judge would issue one in this particular situation is a stretch -- a big one.

Not sure what your experience is, but from my time working for a judge and decades of litigation experience, the directive by Husted to the local boards not to set hours (which he can credibly claim would have resulted in a range of voting times that was not "uniform&quot until the state set one and that the state was going to wait to set the uniform times until after the appeals court ruled was clumsy and ham handed, but would never result in a contempt citation. If he had declared that was his intention in open court, he wouldn't have been cited for contempt -- the court would have done one of two things: told him no, he needed to act more expeditiously (and if had said no he wasn't going to, then maybe contempt would have been threatened) or ask him if he's seeking a stay and if Husted said yes, then the court would have scheduled briefing and argument on that question.

Husted was, as stated, an oaf in the way he handled this and because of that he has probably weakened his chances of getting the court to grant the stay that he has no formally requested. But at this point, he hasn't done anything that would have resulted in a contempt citation based on my experience.

cheers.

ANY SOS who would try to block voters from voting at a crucial election moment is directly violating the terms of his office and should be removed from that office.

THROW THE BUM OUT!!!

Word has been about that they've given up on Michigan and, despite the vote suppression, Pennsylvania. They don't even try in California and NY.

So they'd pretty much need to win both Ohio and Florida. Ohio is looking good for Obama and Charley Crist has to help us in Florida.

I'm more worried about winning back the House and holding the Senate. Also starting to keep our eye on the ball at the state and local levels so kids don't learn that the KKK was just a run of the mill polital movement and that "The Flintstones" was reality. That all goes hand in hand with educating low info voters.

It would also be nice if Obama quit acting like a closet blue dog.

when next to nothing has changed.
In the end, all that will matter is what the court of appeals decides. That case is being considered on an expedited schedule and will be resolved well before the three days preceding election day.