2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumDespite Court Order, Ohio’s GOP Election Chief Is Still Cutting Back Early Voting
Despite Court Order, Ohios GOP Election Chief Is Still Cutting Back Early Voting
Two federal courts said that the Ohio Republican Partys effort to reduce opportunities to vote early must not go into effect. And the Supreme Court rejected an attempt by Ohio Republican officials to reinstate a GOP-backed law taking away three days of early voting just this week.
Yet despite multiple court defeats, Ohios Republican Secretary of State Jon Husted is determined to restrict early voting as much as he can get away with. Indeed, Husted openly defied the first court order blocking the Republican restrictions on early voting, although he eventually backed down after a federal judge ordered him to appear in court personally to explain himself. Now, just two days after the conservative Roberts Court turned away Husteds bid to reinstate the anti-voter law, he is still finding new ways to cut back early voting:
Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted swiftly limited early voting hours on those crucial three days to 8 am2 pm on Saturday, November 3; 15 pm on Sunday, November 4; and 8 am2 pm on Monday, November 5. That means Ohio voters will have a total of only sixteen hours to cast a ballot during those three days. And before the weekend before the election, Ohio voters will still not be able to cast a ballot in-person on nights or weekends.
-snip-
Full article here: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/10/18/1038521/despite-court-order-ohios-gop-election-chief-is-still-cutting-back-early-voting/
LisaL
(44,973 posts)Mutiny In Heaven
(550 posts)sooner rather than later.
Seriously though, even if one were inclined to agree with everything the GOP espouse, if you value democracy and the will of the people to determine who leads the country, it would be impossible to vote for them. Impossible.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Thus forcing people to wait in line for hours, only to have the polls close while they are still in line
dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)They're ignoring court orders...if you or I did that, what do you think they'd do? They'd hold us in contempt. Just like we hold the GOP.
still_one
(92,204 posts)elleng
(130,939 posts)mandate that he be replaced. Tough sell.
In a popular quotation, President Andrew Jackson is supposed to have said: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!". This derives from Jackson's consideration on the case in a letter to John Coffee, "...the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate," (that is, the Court's opinion was moot because it had no power to enforce its edict).[1]
The ruling in Worcester ordered that Worcester be freed; Georgia complied after several months. In 1833, the newly elected governor, Wilson Lumpkin, offered to pardon Worcester and Butler if they ceased their activities among the Cherokee. The two complied and were freed (under the authority of a January 14, 1833 general proclamation, not a formal pardon);[2] they never returned to Cherokee lands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia
JohnnyRingo
(18,635 posts)They operate above the law and use strong arm tactics to achieve their goal of power consolidation.
It's clear that the GOP came down hard on Kasich, telling him he has to swing Ohio for Romney, no matter what he has to do.
budkin
(6,703 posts)Kteachums
(331 posts)Comrade_McKenzie
(2,526 posts)tarheelsunc
(2,117 posts)AndyTiedye
(23,500 posts)The judge should find him in contempt of court and put him in the pokey until after the election.
If he is at large, he will very likely do something like this: