Last-Minute Ohio Directive Could Trash Legal Votes And Swing The Election

[Segami]

A last-minute directive issued by Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted could invalidate legal provisional ballots. Ohio is widely viewed as the most critical state for both presidential campaigns and — with some polls showing a close race — the 11th-hour move could swing the entire election.


The directive, issued Friday, lays out the requirements for submitting a provisional ballot. The directive includes a form which puts the burden on the voter to correctly record the form of ID provided to election officials. Husted also instructed election officials that if the form is not filled out correctly by a voter, the ballot should not be counted.






According to a lawsuit filed late Friday by voting rights advocates, this is “contrary to a court decision on provisional ballots a week ago and contrary to statements made by attorneys for Husted at an Oct. 24 court hearing.”

Indeed, it also appears directly contrary to Ohio law. From the lawsuit:

Ohio Rev. Code § 3505.181(B)(6) provides that, once a voter casting a provisional ballot proffers identification, “the appropriate local election official shall record the type of identification provided, the social security number information, the fact that the affirmation was executed, or the fact that the individual declined to execute such an affirmation and include that information with the transmission of the ballot . . . .” (Emphasis added.)

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/11/03/1134981/last-minute-ohio-directive-could-trash-legal-votes-and-swing-the-election/

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Law, schmaw. This is Ohio.

We don't need no steenkin' law.

[riderinthestorm]

2. At first glance, this looks pretty bad. Anyone have any experience yet with this?

K&R for more eyes and hopefully more feedback. This doesn't sound like a great development but would love to learn more.

[Maeve]

26. Supposedly the idea is to eliminate poll worker errors as the cause for throwing out the ballot

the form is simpler than previously and poll worker error has been a major source of discarding provisional ballots in Ohio. that is also why they recommend using the last four digits of your SS# if you have to vote provisionally--simplifies the whole issue.

[Ms. Toad]

48. I actually don't see this as impacting much.

If the last four digits of the SS# are accurately recorded, the directive has no impact.
If the driver's license is accurately recorded, the directive has no impact. Because the drivers license has two numbers on it the form gives guidance as to which one to use (the one that starts with two alphabet letters) and suggests the voter use the SS# because it is harder to mess up.

If the voter doesn't have, or refuses to provide, one of the first two means of identification (it doesn't have to be shown to the poll worker, but it has to be recorded), then the voter must provide alternate identification - either by showing the poll worker (when the affidavit form is submitted) Military ID, Current bill with a correct address, or a photo ID issued by the government (same standards as day of election ID) or by completing a form 10-T (and returning to the BOE within 10 days and providing acceptable ID).

If you are using alternate ID, one of 4 boxes must be checked. The argument is over what happens when you are using alternate ID and forget to check one of the boxes and did not complete form 10-T.

Husted's directive says the provisional ballot will not be counted if the voter did not record the number associated with the preferred ID on the first two lines (SS# or Driver's License) and did not check one of the four boxes, based on the assumption that if none of the alternate ID boxes is checked you did not actually show the poll worker acceptable alternate ID.

The litigation is based on whose obligation it is to check the box. Under the statute, it is the poll worker's obligation. The affirmation form (and Husted's directive step 2, particularly the last bullet) place the consequences for the error IF there was alternate ID shown but just not recorded on the voter (the provisional ballot not being counted). (The directive actually works in favor of the voter in cases where a box was checked and the poll worker forgets to actually check the alternate ID - since a checked box is a presumption that the alternate ID was actually shown, even if it wasn't.)

Legally - I think Obama's team is correct. But from a practical perspective, I would not expect it to have much impact because it will only result in rejecting a handful of provisional ballots where the voter doesn't has (or will not provide) the last 4 digits of SS# or the drivers' license # AND fails to check one of the first 3 boxes for alternate ID.

[LisaL]

3. That guy just doesn't stop, does he?

[HooptieWagon]

5. Not until he's rotting in jail...

either by conviction, or for deliberately ignoring a court order. I'll settle for the court order, and the judge taking over oversight of Ohio's election.

[Panasonic]

61. And order the bailiff to throw Husted in jail for a minimum of 364 days.

[Dustlawyer]

78. He will reject them all because the ink was too dark or something! He needs to go to jail!

Where are the cries that this is UN-AMERICAN?

[KaryninMiami]

4. Those fuckers. They will stop at nothing. K&R

3-4 hours to early vote on Miami beach today. Thank you Governor Scott - criminal.

[flamingdem]

6. Wow, were you given water or food on line?

Were people hanging in there because they don't want Scott to "win"?

[LisaL]

16. Husted and Scott.

These two sound like identical twins.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

19. Rick Scott is an asshole

But he doesn't determine the number of early polling locations - have you complained to your local elections supervisor? Counties set the hours and number of polling places.

It's a given that the reduced number of days for early voting will force people to vote in a shorter period of time, but that could have been alleviated by opening more polling locations. If I lived in Florida, that's the question I would be asking - why aren't there more polling locations?

[rbrnmw]

7. I really think we have it already in early votes

This NOT 2004 we had a huge grassroots GOTV in early voting here in Ohio Please stop the hand wringing we got this State

[flamingdem]

17. I want you to be right however it's not 2004 in many ways

The billions behind the GOP are not going to take this loss easily.

They'll do anything.

[LisaL]

18. I don't think we should just watch Husted trying to throw out tens of thousands potential votes.

[tavernier]

8. We don't need no law dogs in Ohio.

*spits*

[The Wielding Truth]

9. This is why the tout state rights when they don't hold the Whitehouse. So they can corrupt the vote.

[littlemissmartypants]

10. Kick and rec...n/t

[Supersedeas]

76. And again.

[progressoid]

11. Muthafuckas

[BlueStreak]

12. Is there any chance of getting an injunction on Monday?

[CTyankee]

15. My guess is that O's team is looking into that...if they think a judge will grant it...

according to my son, the prosecutor there has to be a really good chance for the challenge to stand in order to get the restraining order. I'm no lawyer so I dunno, but this just smells of last minute, very desperate political skullduggery!

[BlueStreak]

24. I am not a lawyer, but I believe judges are supposed to issue TROs when ...

it appears likely the underlying claim may have merit AND

failure to issue a TRO would be likely to result in irreparable damages.

I'd think it would be very straightforward to make both of these points. In other words, no harm comes to the state if the state is compelled to accept all provisional ballots on election day, and to arbitrate their validity in court after the fact, if necessary. The idea of destroying provision ballots or denying the voter the opportunity to complete a provisional ballot is absolutely outrageous.

I'd think they might be able to go back to the same Federal court that heard the case of the restricted voting hours.

Did Ohio have a voter-ID law overturned? If so, they might be able to get a TRO from that court on Monday.

[CTyankee]

29. I would think a judge would be pretty outraged by this tactic as well...

it's so obvious what he's trying to do, in the absence of any real reason to do it! There is no proof or threat of "voter fraud."

[BlueStreak]

35. And the whole point of a PROVISIONAL ballot in the first place

Last edited Sat Nov 3, 2012, 07:51 PM - Edit history (1)

is to preserve the intended vote in a form that it can be counted once there is a judgment as to its validity. The only possible purpose of this action by the AG is to completely subvert the intention of the provisional ballot.

[CTyankee]

37. Yes!

[Maraya1969]

39. Is this directive saying that if the person says includes their last 4 digits or their SS#

AND their drivers ID # that the election official should throw the ballot out? (Because it says put either or and not both?)

I'm not quite clear on exactly how they are trying to screw it up.

[Ms. Toad]

62. No.

If the voter provides NEITHER, and doesn't check one of the alternate ID boxes (there's a little more subtlety that is set out downthread), the provisional ballot will not be counted because ID was not provided (the checkmark is the evidence that alternate ID was shown to the election worker).

The basis for the lawsuit is that the statute says the election official has to verify ID, and the form makes the voter verify it. The argument is over what happens when the box isn't checked, no one noticed it, and no other valid ID (like the SS# or Driver's License #) was provided at the time or within 10 days of the election.

[socialindependocrat]

69. Would be nice to see that..

if it is the fault of the election staff that the information is incorrect that the ballot SHOULD BE COUNTED and NOt thrown out.
After all, that's wehat they are there for.

Second, the invalidadted ballots should be counted to see if there is and unreasonable number that voted Dem or Rep the point to conspiracy to undermine the vote for a particular party/candidate.

Honestly, they can think up so many ways to undermine this voting system. I say, no changes for 4 months before any vote.
Allow time for disenfranchised to get the problem fixed before the election.

[Ms. Toad]

74. Well...

There were a number of forced positive changes in that time frame....

[Ms. Toad]

59. Nothing in the directive suggests destroying ballots.

The directive has nothing to do with the ability to complete a provisional ballot.

The directive just sets out the standards governing which provisional ballots will be counted when they are adjudicated by the BOE.

[BlueStreak]

71. The directive relieves poll workers of their responsibility to try to get correct info

Yes, I agree that the SoS did not literally instruct people to put the ballots in the shredder, but it appears to me he instructed them to sit idly by while a voter codes the information in a way that will cause it to be thrown out.

That's no different then shredding it on the spot as far as I'm concerned. And it is a harm that cannot be corrected later, other than by saying that they accept all ballots regardless of whether they are coded correctly or not. It is clearly not the SoS's intention to do that.

A court needs to intervene TODAY to instruct those poll workers to do their jobs tomorrow.

[Ms. Toad]

73. The directive does not change anything the pollworkers are doing.

The form has been used since the first day of early voting. The directive is to the Boards of Election and applies only to reviewing affirmations which were not properly marked. The exact same instruction is on the form the voters fill out (it tells voters that if they don't provide the number associated with the two most common forms of ID AND they don't check a box or fill out a different form AND they don't show back up at the BOE within 10 days their vote won't be counted). All the directive does is require the BOE to follow the directions that are printed on the form when they review them. (Those directions are, in my opinion, legally incorrect - and that issue is being litigated.)

You said you were concerned that the directive subverted "the whole point of a PROVISIONAL ballot in the first place {which was} to preserve the intended vote in a form that it can be counted once there is a judgment as to its validity." That is the difference between a directive to put them in a shredder (not part of this directive) and to count them incorrectly (which is part of this directive).

The lawsuit is over how the review is conducted (based on the directive) - meanwhile, the purpose you articulated for provisional ballots is being carried out- the vote is preserved.

I think the Obama team is legally correct, and will ultimately win. I'm not arguing about the principle - just that there is no destruction of ballots ordered -and that the practical impact is likely to be very small (most people put a SS# or Driver's license number on the form - and if they do, this directive has no impact on them). In addition there are observers in most precincts in Ohio who are instructed to ask to be notified whenever a provisional ballot is issued who can watch to make sure a box is checked. I will be very surprised if an injunction related to poll workers is issued based on litigation requesting clarification on which provisional ballots are to be counted.

[BlueStreak]

77. The BoE workers have a moral responsibility if not a legal one

to assist the public to mark their affirmations in a way that will not lead to rejection at a later time.

The directive, if I understand it correctly, allows the workers to just sit there when a non-expert public fails to complete the affirmation in a way that is acceptable. If the staff allows that and the voter presents the provisional ballot with an improper affirmation, the end result -- the result desired by the SoS will be to throw out the ballot.

I don't see how that can be corrected 2 weeks from now. It needs to be done correctly TOMORROW.

Please address my point rather than lecturing me about all the things that aren't at all pertinent to my point.

[Ms. Toad]

79. Sorry if I seem frustrated -

But the cycle of hype that snowballs small bad steps by Husted into evil things of monstrous proportions, drive me nuts. Yes - Husted is deliberately engaging in voter suppression, and it is taking monumental efforts to make him toe the legal line. But this particular issue is a minor blip which the Obama legal team is taking proper steps to address by requesting clarification of a previous order. While it does need to be addressed promptly (before provisional ballots are counted) it isn't anything which needs to be addressed on an emergency basis before tomorrow.

So my reaction is partly to where you started - which was by talking about the directive resulting in destroying provisional ballots (not even remotely covered by the directive not to mention majorly illegal), and have now switched to an injunction to keep the poll workers from deliberately remaining silent while a voter makes an error (closer, but still not covered by the directive). The directive and the case have nothing to do either - and the lawyers working on the matter for the Obama team aren't even requesting the court to order anything connected to poll workers job duties.

Directive 2012-54 addresses only the process of deciding which provisional ballots are to be counted once the envelopes are returned to the BOE. The law, and prior orders interpreting an earlier decision have already established that Poll workers were, and are, legally obligated to verify the voter's ID, and to inform the voter if additional information is required - and - poll worker error cannot be used to invalidate a provisional ballot. (O.R.C. §§3505.181(B)(6), 3505.182), and the 10/24 and 10/26 orders interpreting the prior Consent Decree). As a practical matter, poll workers are instructed to review the envelope to make sure it is properly filled out (and ID seen, if required) prior to issuing a provisional ballot. I have read poll worker training manuals in one county, and the generic state manual, spoken to a poll worker trained in another county, and I have observed between 50 & 100 provisional ballots issued. Poll workers do not, as a rule, just sit idly by and watch voters make mistakes - and if they do, they are not complying with the law. That's one reason there are observers assigned to most precincts in the state - to note, and put an early stop, to poll workers deliberately or accidentally not doing their jobs.

Despite the hype in the news articles, if you read the directive and the case, the only thing at issue is that the court is being asked to clarify, before adjudication of provisional ballots following the election, that failure to check a box is treated as poll worker error (which under a previous consent decree cannot prevent the ballot from being counted) rather than as voter error.

[BlueStreak]

80. OK. Thank you for that explanation

But that still leaves us in the situation where we don't know ON ELECTION DAY whether or not he court is going to take action to overcome "malicious obedience" on the part of a biased poll worker. And such malicious obedience is clearly the desire of the SoS. That is the only possible reason for his issuing the directive in the first place. It is clearly just another attempt to try to shave votes.

I take your point that this might be affect a relatively small number of ballots, but really, that is not justification for ignoring it. I don't accept an argument that a little election fraud is OK because we really need to focus on the big election fraud. No amount of systematic election fraud is acceptable.

My reading of the directive is not as you stated it. It says clearly that the election boards -- which are controlled by the SoS in every case -- can start examining provisional ballots on Wednesday and they -- not the court -- will make their own judgments about whether to discard a ballot or not -- and that is by a vote where Republicans always have the majority because the SoS is authorized to break ties.

Yes, assuming they don't destroy the ballots on the spot, the court can come back two weeks later and require them to change their decisions, but this is no way to run an election. The court should issue its ruling today or Wednesday at the latest, not two weeks from now.

[Ms. Toad]

81. They can start sorting them on Wednesday into different catogories

But provisional voters, by law, are permitted 10 days to correct deficiencies (to show up at the BOE with permitted ID, for example). So the adjudication can't take place until after that (but I think the wording was funky.) The court has set a briefing schedule so that it can make a decision before the first day at which ballots can be adjudicated. And adjudication of provisional ballots is done in a public meeting - call up and ask when the adjudication is done by your local board of election and show up - it might make you more comfortable with the process - and will almost certainly make you shake your head at the crazy things people do with forms & ballots.

FWIW, adjudicating absentee ballots where the intent of the voter is unclear is also done in a public meeting (things like an erasure that is not clear, check marks instead of filling in an oval, an off kilter mark. One of the "shake your head" ones at the BOE I'm observing was someone who marked every oval except Romney's. Cute way of saying anyone but Romney, but no way to count that as a vote for a single person.) And, to your point about parties, at least at the BOE I observe at there were no party based splits on any of the ballots where the voter intent required interpretation. That's not to say it can't happen - but there is a lot less malice than widely perceived and, again, that is the role of observers (or, in this case, the general public) to notice if there is party bias and bring it to the attention of the proper authorities.

As to Courts v BOE - Courts never make the first cut at adjudication of anything related to electsions. As to the directive and timing - different BOEs were intending to interpret the previous court ruling differently. Some were going to count the missing checkmark as poll worker error (and count the ballot), others were going to count it as evidence that no ID was shown (and the voter would need to return within 10 days to show ID to validate the identification). There was ongoing litigation over a previous order, with new interpreting orders issued on 10/24 and 10/26. The directive was issued on 11/2, after the most recent legal wrangling, to set out a uniform state-wide policy as to how to interpret a missing checkmark. That's a good thing. In this case he set the wrong state-wide standards - but that is what the new court case is about - to get the same correct standards in the hands of every BOE before they adjudicate their first provisional ballot.

It really has nothing to do with authorizing poll workers to ignore the law - any more than not having a pre-emptive court ruling that walking out of your local convenient mart without paying for something authorizes theft. There is already ample law to determine the basic legal issue - and an additional court order saying essentially the same thing isn't going to deter anyone who is intent on voter suppression. (And, remember, that is why the Obama team has placed observers in most precincts around the state - to make sure (among other things) that poll workers are not deliberately or accidentally ignoring the law.)

FWIW -rejected provisional ballots are not discarded - they are required by law to be kept (even spoiled ballots where someone requests a replacement) - for a period of time. Every ballot has a numbered stub and that stub has to be accounted for one way or another. (Issued to voter and not returned, returned, spoiled, remade, rejected provisional, etc.)

[bkkyosemite]

47. They need to get that injunction after the vote but before certification...so corrupt.

[kath]

13. So a PASSPORT isn't good enough ID?!???!!?

What. The. Fuck.

[a la izquierda]

22. According to the SoS website, it is.

And I'll fight like mad, because I do not have an Ohio ID and will not get one.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

23. You don't need an Ohio ID

Just write the last four of your SS number.

And unless you cast a provisional ballot, this won't even apply.

[LisaL]

25. A lot of ballots could be provisional this year.

If somebody in OH applied for an absentee ballot, but changed their mind and didn't submit an absentee ballot, they can only vote provisional. You can not tear up your absentee ballot in OH to be allowed a regular vote.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

30. Yes, I understand that

But the OP pertains to provisional ballots, and the instructions clearly state that the last four digits of the SSN suffice for ID. Provide that and none of the rest of the ID requirements pertain.

[Maeve]

31. You can also take your absentee ballot to the BOE before voting ends

DO NOT take it to your voting place--we can't accept them. Take it to the county BOE--they can and will.

[kath]

27. Is it? From what I could tell poking around the various OH websites, a passport is not

sufficient ID.. Probably because it doesn't include a current address?

What set me searching was the line in the document pictured in the OP that says "a form of photo identification (except US passport)".

[Maeve]

33. You are correct--it's about the address

Some passports have the address, not all do. A utility bill with your name and address is acceptable, or a bank statement, insurance card, credit card statement--virtually anything "official" that has your name and address (as it appears in the signature book) is valid ID for voting.

[Ms. Toad]

43. I started to answer -

Then I thought....perhaps I should check to see if Maeve has been here first.

[Maeve]

44. !!!!!

[a la izquierda]

36. Yeah, I suppose you we're right...

I don't have an address on mind, so a passport and pay stub it is. Ugh.

[gravity]

32. Passport doesn't have an address on it

You can't prove the be an Ohio resident.

[Ms. Toad]

45. Theoretically, the issue isn't residence

but identification. But in terms of which documents the law permits to be used to establish your identification the law is mixed. Some documents require an address. Others do not (military ID) - or may be used with a wrong address (State ID card).

As a general rule, however, the method used to prove who you are must also include a current address (passports fall under the general rule - and because they don't include an address aren't valid).

Birth certificates are interesting - if you still live in the house in which your parents lived when you were born and your birth certificate includes that address it is a government document containing your name and current address. I don't know that I would want to be the one to test that...

[Angry Dragon]

14. Throw his ass in prison

[liberalmuse]

20. If he is trying to subvert the vote...

he is guilty of treason, and should be punished as such. I really don't have an issue with anyone who steals a precious vote rotting in prison. He won't get away with it if he even succeeds in stealing Ohio for Romney, which I don't think will happen.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

21. Asshole, yes

Treasonous asshole, no.

Illegal? Most likely, yes.

Treason has a very specific definition, and this ain't it.

[Coyotl]

28. It is called "voting suppression" and it has been trademarked and patented by the Republicans

Ergo, they are the only ones who can do this legally

[Hassin Bin Sober]

34. I remember grade school civics/history class we discussed the Voter's Rights Act.

I think it was sixth grade if memory serves me.

Anyway, I distinctly remember the example of voter intent and how the pigs used to invalidate minority votes for even partially "checking outside the box".

Same old story, different decade.

[ananda]

38. An act or law is only as good as its enforcement!

DOJ anyone ???

[WillyT]

40. HUGE K & R !!!

[sulphurdunn]

41. However the courts

finally rule, lots and lots of paper ballots and voter registration forms will have already disappeared.

[Botany]

42. This ruling will be smacked down before 10:00 AM Monday

Husted has zero legal standing to tell poll workers to break the law.

He was smacked down by 2 Federal Courts and the US Supreme Court
in trying to stop early voting in OH and I have no doubt that Judge Economus
will take of this in the AM.

***********

BTW if republican ideas are so popular then we do they ALWAYS HAVE TO CHEAT
TO WIN?

[julian09]

46. How many early votes were already cast before directive came out, probably nullifying them?

[Ms. Toad]

50. First - the directive doesn't affect all early votes -

The only possible impact is on provisional voters (early or not).

Second, the directive says the same thing as form the voters are filling out says. Every provisional voter, both before and after the directive, fills out the exact same form - the directive has no impact on the process of casting a provisional ballot.

The only potential impact (and likely a very small one) is in which ones get counted in the days following the election.

If the voter used the last 4 digits of his/her SS# for ID - the directive has no impact
If the voter used the correct number from his/her driver's license - the directive has no impact. (And because there are two numbers on the driver's license, the form encourages using the SS# option to have a better chance of being counted.)
If the voter did neither of the above and checked any of the first 3 boxes on the provisional ballot affirmation - the directive has no impact.
If the voter did none of the above, but came back within 10 days to the BOE with proper ID OR completed a 10-T (if eligible) - the directive has no impact.

The above options (generally the first two) apply to the vast majority of provisional ballot affirmations).

The few that will be impacted are those who didn't take either of the first two options, forgot to check any of the boxes, didn't fill out a 10-T (if eligible) and or forgot to come back with ID), and the poll worker did not notice that the form was incomplete. In those limited circumstances, they will be presumed not to have shown any ID, and their provisional ballot will not be counted.

The court case is, essentially, what are the consequences when this kind of mistake occurs in documenting the few cases in which ID actually must be viewed by the poll worker. The directive says pretty much what was on the form the voter filled out (the same one in use before the directive): "If you do not check one of the following boxes . . . the board of elections will conclude that you did NOT show ID to your precinct election official and you must show ID at the board of elections during the 10 days after the election for your vote to be eligible to be counted."

The statute says the poll worker must check the box documenting the ID was seen. The form says the voter has to. The directive says - if the box wasn't checked it means the ID wasn't seen (and the vote can't be counted).

[SickOfTheOnePct]

56. Thank you for this in-depth explanation!

I was trying to figure out how/when this might come into play, and you've explained it brilliantly.

I'm concerned in VA, because we have a new voter ID law (many types of ID are accepted, doesn't have to be picture ID), and if you show up at the polling place without ID, you get a provisional ballot. Then, you have to go the county board of elections and show an ID by Friday, or your vote is tossed.

[Ms. Toad]

63. Friday is really short -

In Ohio you have 10 days.

[cynzke]

49. Simple Mistake Could Cost Your Vote.

Here in Georgia, I voted in person last week. Prior to voting I had to fill out a form and submit my photo id. One of the first questions on the form was address of registration. The registration verification card I received months before, was sent to my P.O. Box, so that is what I put down for an answer to the question, assuming my county considers that the registration address. Lower down on the form it asked for my physical address, which I answered with. When I turned the form into the election processor, she handed back the form stating I had to correct the address of registration to my street address, which I did. Upon that correction, I was allowed to proceed and vote.
NOW had this occurred in Ohio with a provisional ballot, would my ballot be tossed out because I put my PO Box down for the registration address. I BET IT WOULD!

[Ms. Toad]

64. No.

The address is not even requested on the affirmation (the form is shown in the OP).

But when an address is requested during early voting, if your address does not match what is on record, an attempt will be made to determine what your correct address is - and you may be required to vote provisionally if it has changed (and one side of the provisional ballot envelope permits you to update your registration so it will be correct for next year).

[triplepoint]

51. Why Can't DOJ JAIL THIS FUCKER?

Obviously, Ohio has a broken election system. Obviously, husted won't obey his state's laws concerning election procedure. This is deja vu all over again ala Presidential Election 2000 (Florida) and Election 2004 (Ohio). That's why I will NEVER live in either state. Both suck. This fucker should't EVEN be breathing...

[garthranzz]

52. Let us repeat: WHY IS HUSTED NOT IN JAIL?

This should be front-page headline news 24/7 - criminal charges must be filed by DoJ.

Perhaps we all should look into using Shrub's coronation by the so-called SCOTUS as legal grounds for invalidating OH altogether?

[triplepoint]

53. Provisional Ballots Go Right Into the Trash--They Are "Placebo Ballots"

Just ask Investigative Reporter Greg Palast or read his latest book, "Billionaires and Ballot Bandits."

www.gregpalast.com
http://www.towardfreedom.com/americas/3000-ballot-bandits-greg-palast-explains-how-the-2012-elections-could-be-stolen

[Ms. Toad]

65. While it is clearly better to avoid a provisional ballot,

Every provisional ballot in Ohio is required to be adjudicated at a public meeting of the board of election. If you cast a provisional ballot, you have every right to attend and see if your ballot will be counted in the final total. I believe you can also verify by telephone following the adjudication (but I don't have that info handy - so I can't verify that understanding).

[triplepoint]

67. Sounds Good.....but

I don't believe the rules governing this will EVER be obeyed. Never have in the past. Why now? In for a penny, in for a pound:

2000 Florida
2004 Ohio

Rules were made to be broken, and that's what is going on EVEN as I post this response to your naive post.

[Ms. Toad]

68. I am an observer in a R county in Ohio,

Appointed by the Democratic Party.

In that role, I have access to pretty much anything any election worker has access to in the BOE. (Observers are permitted to watch every proceeding of the judges of elections from the time of opening to the time of closing of the polls, to inspect the counting of all ballots in the polling place or board of elections, to observe in any area where ballots are being cast, processed, counted, or recounted, and to move freely about the board of elections.) That is the law, and it matches my experience. What I have observed in the approximately 90 hours I have, or will, be present between the start of early voting and election day demonstrates utmost respect for making sure every eligible voter has the opportunity to vote, and that every ballot cast by an eligible voter is counted.

(Directives from SOS Husted are a different matter. Those are intended to suppress voting, and some of the more recent ones are not welcomed, even by BOEs in R counties.)

I have been tracking provisional ballots from the first day, know how many have been cast, and either I (or a fellow observer appointed by the Democratic Party) will be present when they are adjudicated.

So no, I am not naive. I don't expect the process to be self monitoring and am donating a considerable amount of my time to be an observer to catch problems early so they impact the minimum number of voters. But I have a lot more access to the day to day, behind the scenes activity during elections than you do. And I do know how provisional ballots are handled by law and practice - and how they are not.

[Maeve]

70. Again, many thanks for helping clear up misunderstandings of how Ohio works

And for doing your part to keep the ballot fair and accurate!

You ever get to the Columbus area, we ought to get together.

[Ms. Toad]

75. You're welcome

and thanks to you, too!

I occasionally get to Columbus - less than before the OSBA Section and Committee schedule rearrangements a couple of years ago. But every once in a while. Getting together would be fun!

[blkmusclmachine]

54. .

.

[Larry66]

55. Totally Shameless

the republican party is totally shameless and morally bankrupt. They have to be the most evil institution on the face of the planet. Keep fighting Ohioans !!!!!!!

[patrice]

57. So, the law says county election official employees are supposed to fill out the form, right?

[Ms. Toad]

66. They are obligated to verify the ID

The form isn't specifically included in the law.

Apparently the previous form was a mess and errors were often made in filling it out. This one is simpler, but shifts the burden for ID verification to the voter (i.e. the checkmark is the evidence that an alternate ID was presented; no checkmark, the directive presumes no alternate ID was shown.)

[Bernardo de La Paz]

58. So much stuff on Husted that it is clear he is completely corrupted by power. nt

[Panasonic]

60. Husted is already breaking Ohio law.

It's time to put his ass in prison for the rest of his natural life, plus his bones destroyed.

[1StrongBlackMan]

72. Okay ...

When is some body of law enforcement going to believe that Husted is doing exactly what he, and Blackwell before him, was told to do ... deliver Ohio to the gop, by any manner necessary, legal or extra-legal.

And would it been too much for the Court of Appeals, in its last slip-down of Husted's machinations, to have said (as judges have been known to say to repeat visitors to their court): "STOP IT! If you come before this court, on this issue again, you will not like the out-come. In case that's not clear enough, if you come before this court again on this issue, bring a toothbrush."