General Discussion

hack89

(39,181 posts)

19. Not particularly strong yet still potentially a winning argument.

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 05:09 PM

Oct 2012

The Obama campaign concedes that there’s no general right to cast an early ballot and agrees that the state could discriminate in favor of military voters when it came to the rules for casting overseas ballots given the additional burdens faced by these voters. Furthermore, Ohio’s attorney general points out that the state sent absentee ballot applications to all eligible voters in the state. This all seems to suggest that the burden on Ohio voters in losing the last three days is not severe.

Surprisingly, however, both a federal district court and the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit agreed with the Obama campaign that the selective cutback was unconstitutional. The district court seemed to endorse a “non-retrogression” principle: A state didn’t have to provide early voting, but once it did it could not take it away without good reason. The court said that Ohio officials had not proved they needed the last weekend to get ready for Election Day, as the state had claimed.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

49 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

OH SHIT. Is the Supreme Court About To Swing Another Presidential Election? [View all] ProfessionalLeftist Oct 2012 OP

The GOP dirty tricks has to stop. New legislation re. voting rights required? lumpy Oct 2012 #1

It is so obviously nothing more than dirty tricks that if the SC upholds it, Squinch Oct 2012 #11

If Rmoney wins we will not have any rights to pass new legislation INdemo Oct 2012 #37

Could someone translate the legal discussion flamingdem Oct 2012 #2

OK to start with but it has morphed due to various rulings along the way ie: ProfessionalLeftist Oct 2012 #5

And the Supremes have the time to rule on this at this late date? flamingdem Oct 2012 #8

Your skepticism is well earned - truedelphi Oct 2012 #9

And then stipulating that their FUCKING OBSCENE RULING COULD NEVER BE USED FOR PRECEDENT. Raster Oct 2012 #33

The Supreme Court never said that. former9thward Oct 2012 #42

Yes, they are using it as precedent, however... Raster Oct 2012 #45

If at all possible we may need to focus on Virginia then Stargleamer Oct 2012 #47

The last sentence of your post mkes total sense truedelphi Oct 2012 #49

Not particularly strong yet still potentially a winning argument. hack89 Oct 2012 #19

Kind of goes back to Bush* v Gore Bandit Oct 2012 #26

I have seen Bush v Gore cited many times in equal rights suits. former9thward Oct 2012 #43

If the SC does rule against Ohio voters, I'll be fascinated to read the reasoning. Indpndnt Oct 2012 #3

The Supremes didn't *have* to take the case. BellaKos Oct 2012 #4

I've suspected their motives... ProfessionalLeftist Oct 2012 #7

The Supreme Court hasn't "taken" anything. onenote Oct 2012 #24

NO! graham4anything Oct 2012 #6

This already happened? flamingdem Oct 2012 #10

From ScotusBlog - sounds like it may be imminent ProfessionalLeftist Oct 2012 #12

it is going to the full court, no was answering the question in the post above. graham4anything Oct 2012 #13

If she had declined they could go to another Justice for the stay Bluenorthwest Oct 2012 #30

Ironically, the Supremes will probably rule in favor of "states' rights," y'all. ancianita Oct 2012 #14

Not if the Court completely disgraces itself like it did in 2000... Hosnon Oct 2012 #20

The article I saw said it won't be until after Nov 6th TrogL Oct 2012 #15

That has to do with Voter ID...this issue is with early voting in Ohio. n/t ProfessionalLeftist Oct 2012 #17

No surprise here. The Supreme Court is dominated by far-right extremists. AverageJoe90 Oct 2012 #16

If the Supreme court does reverse the court order it could help by bringing WI_DEM Oct 2012 #18

Encouraging POint, thanks WI_DEM Cha Oct 2012 #36

Early voting has already started in Ohio. Capn Sunshine Oct 2012 #21

If people have already voted in Ohio, the Admin should argue under "Equal protection" progressivebydesign Oct 2012 #27

The argument: treestar Oct 2012 #22

they set the precedent..... spanone Oct 2012 #23

I have hope in Chief Justice Roberts. berni_mccoy Oct 2012 #25

I would not bet on Roberts siding with the liberal side of the court. Won't happen. madinmaryland Oct 2012 #29

I heard an interesting thing on NPR about him renate Oct 2012 #31

I think you are fooling yourself if you think the healthcare ruling . . . markpkessinger Oct 2012 #35

While nothing is impossible..... Swede Atlanta Oct 2012 #28

Roberts cares about his legacy, he needs the court to be considered legit longterm graham4anything Oct 2012 #32

If they're smart, they'll stay the hell out of it. It's a state issue AtomicKitten Oct 2012 #34

I fear you're wrong. They're bulletproof in there. Bucky Oct 2012 #38

I believe that of Scalia, Roberts, and Alito - but Roberts may be reluctant to wade in. AtomicKitten Oct 2012 #39

No! I do not KNOW what the USSC will do. longship Oct 2012 #40

There is NO WAY they would stoop this low. NO WAY! budkin Oct 2012 #41

If the Supreme Court did swing another election would it be ..... Hotler Oct 2012 #44

That's bull shit! Everyone should get to vote! underoath Oct 2012 #46

SCOTUS just decided not to hear it. Kablooie Oct 2012 #48