Won't they be disenfranchised?

From Mike Flynn at Breitbart

President Barack Obama, along with many Democrats, likes to say that, while they may disagree with the GOP on many issues related to national security, they absolutely share their admiration and dedication to members of our armed forces. Obama, in particular, enjoys being seen visiting troops and having photos taken with members of our military. So, why is his campaign and the Democrat party suing to restrict their ability to vote in the upcoming election?

On July 17th, the Obama for America Campaign, the Democratic National Committee and the Ohio Democratic Party filed suit in OH to strike down part of that state's law governing voting by members of the military. Their suit said that part of the law is "arbitrary" with "no discernible rational basis."

Currently, Ohio allows the public to vote early in-person up until the Friday before the election. Members of the military are given three extra days to do so. While the Democrats may see this as "arbitrary" and having "no discernible rational basis," I think it is entirely reasonable given the demands on servicemen and women's time and their obligations to their sworn duty.

The National Defense Committee reports:

[f]or each of the last three years, the Department of Defense’s Federal Voting Assistance Program has reported to the President and the Congress that the number one reason for military voter disenfranchisement is inadequate time to successfully vote.

I think its unconscionable that we as a nation wouldn't make it as easy as possible for members of the military to vote. They arguably have more right to vote than the rest of us, since it is their service and sacrifice that ensures we have the right to vote in the first place.

If anyone proposes legislation to combat voter fraud, Democrats will loudly scream that the proposal could "disenfranchise" some voter, somewhere. We must ensure, they argue, that voting is easy and accessible to every single voter. Every voter, that is, except the men and women of our military.

Make no mistake, the Democrat lawsuit is intended to disenfranchise some unknown number of military voters. The judge should reject it with prejudice.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

They just want to repeal and replace the law.

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

You did a very nice job turning the issue around on the Democrats.

The goal of the Democrats is to extend the same early voting rights to ALL VOTERS, not JUST to those in the military.

The overall goal of the Republicans is to LIMIT voter participation. The Democrats seek to INCREASE voter participation.

You are consistent in your partisanship, Fred.

There's a pretty big difference between the ability of a deployed member of the military being able to vote and the average citizen.
There is very little excuse for average citizens not voting if the want to. If they can't get around on their own they can get an absentee ballot. On election day the polls are open, what, 12 hours at least?
I've voted in every presidential election since turning 18, and guess what, I did it in person on election day.
Some people act like it's so difficult, jeez, folks in some countries risk life and limb and have a greater turnout than we do.

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

The credibility of anything from Breitbart is usually suspect, so suspect that the name "Breitbart" immediately gives rise to the image of a bright fart: A flash of light that cannot be sustained, followed by what sounds like a bark, and then the foul odor of last night's supper.

For months I have been researching the factual basis of commentary from Breitbart and have found nothing--except occasional links to other Republican Party supporter blogs, which link to similar blogs. I think of such blogs as pools for breeding virtual viruses--and stomach gas.

This article's total lack of links to sources that would support Breitbart's commentary, suggests he has no credible sources. When I write an article for the Internet that is based on factual information, not just my opinion, I provide links to my sources.

If Breitbart could be described in a thumbnail sketch, it would be by comparison with the little boy who cried wolf too many times.

This is just my opinion, for which I do not have credible sources.

The credibility of anyone who refers to work from the Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute of Taxation and Economic Policy as "highly objective" is usually suspect as well.

One would think that someone, after months of research, would be able to navigate/search the Breitbart site well enough to see that this post was merely a copy of the original article. And someone with such an "extensive" knowledge base of Breitbart commentary, would have certainly checked out the original article to see that there were in fact links to both the Ohio Secretary of State and National Defense Committee.

But let's be honest, who really has the two and a half minutes to do that kind of leg work? Especially when it doesn't fit the narrative of such a "well researched" opinion.

I seldom waste my time vetting a blog posting to determine if it is "merely a copy of the original article." If you know there exists an earlier article, from which Mike Flynn copied, you could have provided the missing source citations, or links, in support of your comments--unless of course, the original article never existed.

So you're not only lazy, but you're also a hack. Thanks for clearing that up.

Well it's telling that you've done "months" of research and have no credible resources for your claim.

"When I write an article for the Internet that is based on factual information, not just my opinion, I provide links to my sources." And where would these be anonymous poster? I mean if you're going to attack the credibility of an organization without proper citation to support your claim you should at least be held to an equal standard.

Do you really think we should take you at your word with your 1 week and 2 days as a member here and your 2 total posts compared to years of publishing by Andrew Brietbart and his staff?

For the record, I have a degree in Journalism, am known to members here, and have been posting on this forum for approx. 6 years.

MikeyA

Is that what you do in the Marine Corps? Are you a public affairs officer? Just curious.

No

No, it's not.

The Marine Corps does not assign people based upon their degrees. The only exception to this are Lawyers, but they come in under contract and with different service obligations.

When Officer's are assigned MOSes at The Basic School (TBS) the class is broken up into thirds. The top third, the middle third, the bottom third. Then the Assignment Branch determines how many of each MOSes are needed per class. For instance if 3 tankers are needed then an Officer from each tier would be selected. If 39 supply officers are needed then 13 from each tier are selected. Some MOSes are not needed in some classes.

Each Lieutenant gets to rate every MOS per their preference. So the 1st Officer in Tier 1 gets his first choice as does the 1st Officer from Tier 2, and 3 assuming there's enough slots available. So regardless of what tier one is in it's more important to be at the top of that tier than it is to be in a higher tier. The guy at the bottom of Tier 1 will most likely not get a job from his top 5.

My first choice was Combat Engineer. I received my 2nd choice, Logistics. The only Officer who is told where they are ranked in their class is the Honor Grad, everyone else can figure out who the top 5 Lts are and who the bottom 5 are. Class standing is a factor for further promotions and retention.

I am very grateful I did not get Engineering. Of the Engineering Officers I graduated with none of them are still in the Marine Corps. I LOVE my job and having worked with Engineers I don't think I would have been as happy with that as an MOS.

My journalism degree has served me well because Journalists write at an 8th grade level. Marine Corps Orders are written at an 8th grade level because they need to be understood by all. I've had to rewrite my share of Orders and Letters of Instruction because my peers have a tendancy to amplify their writing in an effort to sound more formal.

MikeyA

This is just my opinion, for which I do not have credible sources.

"The overall goal of the Republicans is to LIMIT voter participation. The Democrats seek to INCREASE voter participation."

I hate to inform you Dale but you are wrong. What they are trying to do is ensure that average civilians get the same treatment as military members. Yet there are very specific reasons why the military is treated differently. For instance, military members DO NOT have civil rights. This is the administration trying to remove those differences in an effort to improve their chances at reelection.

Again, as I've stated before, the Dems scream when anyone else is disenfranchised but they are not as vocal when it comes to the military.

I absolutely hate it when politicians attempt to use the military as a political pawn like this.

I predict they will lose this battle because even the Supreme Court has acknowledge the differences between military and civilian. There is no coincidence that the Veteran's Groups are lining up behind the State of Ohio for defense of the law as it currently stands.

MikeyA

...including Ohio, make special provisions for military and overseas voters. Most of those special provisions are based upon federal law which mandates such provisions. Special provisions for the military are nothing new, so this particular Ohio provision, which allows them to vote in person for the three days before the election, is not unusual nor out of the ordinary.

I've read the entire lawsuit, as well as the first response from the state and the two filings by 15 military groups who have asked to join the lawsuit and who object to the Democrats' motion for a temporary restraining order to prevent the voting until such time as the case is decided.

The entire argument presented by the Democrat plantiffs is that the military voters should NOT have the special provisions. They state that the law is unconstitutional (discriminatory) because 'ordinary' Ohioans are not provided the same opportunity as the military. That ask for the law to be overturned on that basis.

While Handbanana said they want to repeal and replace the law, the lawsuit only has the repeal portion. Any replacement portion would have to come from the Ohio legislature and they've already debated and rejected the position of the Democrats: that all Ohioans should be given only this special provision that is granted to the military. In fact, that is even mentioned in the filings in the case.

Please note - there are no objections to the other special voting provisions that Ohio law gives to the military and the lawsuit doesn't seek to have 'ordinary' Ohioans enjoy those other special provisions...it's just this one.

Now, if the issue was really about increasing the opportunity to vote, you'd have to ask yourself why only one special military provision is being attacked, by virtue of a lawsuit to declare it unconstitutional, and not all of them.

Additionally, this particular bill that they want declared unconstitutional was passed unanimously by our house and senate members. So why would the Ohio Democratic Party be one of the entities suing to overturn a bill that all their elected representatives supported?

Another question we should be asking is why this wasn't an issue in the primary when the same provisions were in place? If it's okay for one election, why not for all?

There is, I believe, more to this than meets the eye and the arguments for and against are not as simple as 'let more people vote' and 'disenfranchise the military.'

Part of it goes to the bigger issue of ensuring that military voters, given their lack of ability to schedule their days, travel and time off, as well as their physical locations, have the ability to actually participate in the electoral process.

Part of it also revolves around the question of 'how much is enough?' Given that we can vote in Ohio for roughly a full month, including 13 hours on election day, is that 'enough' time to allow a ballot to be cast by everyone who wanst to? Also, since the majority of people still vote on election day, do we think it is reasonable to allow the boards of election a couple of days to prepare for election day?

Personally, I find it offensive that any group thinks voters (all or or a subset) can't be responsible enough to vote during the allowable times, have a valid form of identification, or that they somehow will be irreparably harmed if they can't vote via the in-person absentee method on the three days before the election.

I guess I just have more faith in the people who want to vote.

Last thought - if my understanding is correct, repealing the law won't mean that all Ohioans can vote during those three days - just that the military won't be able to. Is that really what the Obama for America campaign, Democratic National Committee and Ohio Democratic Party really want?

I have made it crystal clear that I am a strong supporter of our nation's military. I would not support anything that would limit the rights of those who bravely serve our nation.

I am not an attorney. After I read your post, I decided to do some research before replying. My understanding is that, if the Democrats who brought this lawsuit are successful, the new law will be thrown out by the courts, and the old law will be resurrected. That court action would NOT limit the right of our military to vote! BOTH those in the military, AND outside of the military would have the same early voting rights as ONLY the military has under the controversial new law.

Our military women and men -- and justifiably so -- have benefits which non-military citizens do not. They get educational benefits. The receive medical benefits from the VA for life! They get bonus points on tests when they apply for government jobs under civil service.

None of these affect the right to vote. Every voting option available for those serving in our military should be available for all Americans wherever practicable.

It all comes back to the Republican Party, and you, Maggie, making a conscious decision to go against the historical movement, which in previous generations was supported strongly by the Republican Party, to expand the number of Americans who participate in American elections.

The Republican Party LOVES to fly American flags, while undermining Americans. This is the same political party which sent our young people into battle without properly armored tanks, and without proper body armor. Remember when parents, friends, and other family members were holding fund-raisers so they could ship personal body armor to these young people in Iraq and Afghanistan? And this was all at a time when we had a Republican President and Republican control of both Houses of Congress. Now, and always when it's convenient to do so, the Republicans falsely hide behind our brave women and men who serve us. How profoundly sad!

If you bothered to read what I wrote, you will find this:

There is, I believe, more to this than meets the eye and the arguments for and against are not as simple as 'let more people vote' and 'disenfranchise the military.'

The standard party line of the Dems is 'let more people vote' and the standard line coming from those on the right is that it would 'disenfranchise the military'. My position is that the it's not that simple...

As for expanding the number of Americans who vote - I'm all for qualified electors being able to vote, but states have different rules and different ways of doing that. I think there are valid reasons for not doing in-person absentees the three days before the election, just as there are valid reasons FOR doing in-person absentees those three days.

But don't you find it even the least bit 'odd' (for lack of better term) that this rule was in place for the primary and no one cared? Why now? Why not during the primary? And if this law is such an affront, why did every member - Republican and Democrat - in the Ohio House and Senate vote FOR it?!?

Rather than attack me - think about the contradictions being presented in the lawsuit and you'll see that there has to be more than meets the eye on this - as I said originally.

Hypocrisy seems to be a disease which infects both political parties. All I want is more participation by properly registered voters. If the lawsuit furthers this goal, as I believe it does, great! If the lawsuit further limits those who may vote early, it is not in the best interests of Ohio's citizens.

All I can say is that good Republicans, not only Lincoln and Thaddeus Stevens from the Civil War era, but also Jacob Javits and Everett Dirkson, from the 1950s and 1960s, would be disappointed in the Republican efforts to limit voter participation.

I just read where George Prescott Bush quoted his father, Jeb, as stating that the national Republican Party has become so rigidly right-wing that Ronald Reagan could not get the Republican nomination for President today. That's a disturbing statement!

Government governs best when it governs from the political center. Government governs best when conservatives and liberals are willing to compromise to move the nation forward. It will be interesting to see what happens as we approach the fiscal "cliff" at the end of this calendar year.

I've read the entire lawsuit

I highly doubt the veracity of that statement.

While Handbanana said they want to repeal and replace the law, the lawsuit only has the repeal portion. Any replacement portion would have to come from the Ohio legislature and they've already debated and rejected the position of the Democrats

I was making light of the Republicans' current stance on Obamacare. The DNC lawsuit doesn't actually seek to repeal the law, it instead intends to prevent the implementation of an early voting restriction for non-military voters.

Now, if the issue was really about increasing the opportunity to vote, you'd have to ask yourself why only one special military provision is being attacked, by virtue of a lawsuit to declare it unconstitutional, and not all of them.

Because military members are covered by a federal law that conflicts with the new Ohio early voting restrictions. The military only has the ability to vote until the monday prior to an election because the the state legislature COULDN'T take their early voting rights away. It's not a "special military provision", it's a legislative oversight.

Part of it also revolves around the question of 'how much is enough?' Given that we can vote in Ohio for roughly a full month, including 13 hours on election day, is that 'enough' time to allow a ballot to be cast by everyone who wanst to? Also, since the majority of people still vote on election day, do we think it is reasonable to allow the boards of election a couple of days to prepare for election day?

If the polls are already being kept open and staffed for military voters, why not allow everyone to vote? A military ID isn't a Costco Executive Members Card.

Personally, I find it offensive that any group thinks voters (all or or a subset) can't be responsible enough to vote during the allowable times, have a valid form of identification, or that they somehow will be irreparably harmed if they can't vote via the in-person absentee method on the three days before the election.

What the hell? You just said military members have a hard time getting to the polls. Now you're offended by their inability to schedule days off?

Last thought - if my understanding is correct, repealing the law won't mean that all Ohioans can vote during those three days - just that the military won't be able to.

Your understanding is incorrect.

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

would you say:

"I highly doubt the veracity of that statement."

I have no idea why you would accuse me of lying about such a thing, especially when even my political opponents say I do my homework. I have a subscription to the Pacer program which allows me to view all the documents filed in federal district courts. I've read the original lawsuit, the response filed by the state and the motion of 15 military groups to intervene as well as their opposition to the motion for temporary restraining order. The plaintiffs filed a complaint, a motion for preliminary injunction, an affidavit in support of their motion and notices of appearance - 61 pages along with 72 pages of exhibits. Here's the link so you can go out and read them as well: http://www.pacer.gov/

As for my statement where I said:

Personally, I find it offensive that any group thinks voters (all or or a subset) can't be responsible enough to vote during the allowable times, have a valid form of identification, or that they somehow will be irreparably harmed if they can't vote via the in-person absentee method on the three days before the election.

And you wrote:

"What the hell? You just said military members have a hard time getting to the polls. Now you're offended by their inability to schedule days off?"

You have seriously misconstrued what I said. My reference was to the Democrats who seem to believe that the lack of those three days would 'irreparably harm' their supporters (or that voters can't get an ID, etc...). I was certainly NOT referring to members of the military.

Members of the military do not make their own schedules. They can't just say to their commanding officer - 'hey, can I have a couple of hours off to go vote.' Their time is not their own and they often are not even allowed off base to be able to go to a polling location. It is this fact that I believe earns them special consideration when it comes to voting.

I also wrote:

"I guess I just have more faith in the people who want to vote."

Apparently you missed that critical point.

As for my understanding that repeal of the law would not allow all Ohioans to vote those three days, I still believe that is correct. While I agree with what is said in the article you linked - that the goal of the plaintiffs is to extend to all Ohioans the ability to vote in-person absentees during those three days - the lawsuit asks the court to find that HB 224 is unconstitutional. Here is the summary for the bill that tells you what it does so you can understand that finding it unconstitutional does NOT mean that all voters can vote those three days: http://www.lsc.state.oh.us/analyses129/11-hb224-129.pdf

From what I have been told, the legislature would have to act (pass a bill) to allow voting those three days. This is not my personal conclusion as I'm certainly not an expert on the matter, but that's what several lawyers and legislative staff have indicated. Of course, a court can rule all kinds of things, so the goal may be what a court decides. I'll leave that up to the lawyers and the courts....

I have no idea why you would accuse me of lying about such a thing...

Because of comments you made like this:

I've read the entire lawsuit, as well as the first response from the state and the two filings by 15 military groups who have asked to join the lawsuit and who object to the Democrats' motion for a temporary restraining order to prevent the voting until such time as the case is decided.

Which is completely contradictory to what the lawsuit actually says:

For these reasons and those specifically alleged herein, Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from implementing or enforcing the HB 224 and SB 295 changes to Ohio Rev. Code § 3509.03, thereby restoring in-person absentee voting on the three days immediately preceding Election Day for all Ohio voters.

That was on page four. Four, not forty four. You either didn't read the lawsuit or you "skimmed it", because that was about thirty seconds into the filing.

Members of the military do not make their own schedules. They can't just say to their commanding officer - 'hey, can I have a couple of hours off to go vote.'

And this never happens to people working in private industry. It's not like anyone has ever been called into work on a day off, had a boss throw an urgent project at them that required time beyond 9-5, or get sent to another state to help reconnect power after a big storm. Nope, none of those things has ever happen.

It is this fact that I believe earns them special consideration when it comes to voting.

Again, if we're spending money to keep the polls open for military members and their families, why not allow every voter vote at that time?

the lawsuit asks the court to find that HB 224 is unconstitutional.

No, it does not. According to this memo filed by the plaintiffs:

Neither the substance of its Equal Protection claim, nor the relief requested, challenges the legislature’s authority to make appropriate accommodation, including early voting during the period in question, for military voters, their spouses or dependents.

The lawsuit is using HB 224 as a foothold to restore early voting rights to all Ohio voters under the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.

This is not my personal conclusion as I'm certainly not an expert on the matter, but that's what several lawyers and legislative staff have indicated.

So what is your "personal conclusion"? The plaintiffs' intent is clear if you actually read the filings. Again, from the previously linked memo:

The question before the Court is whether, in the circumstances of this case, the State of Ohio may arbitrarily and without justification withdraw from all other Ohio eligible voters the same right they previously had to vote the weekend and Monday before Election Day.

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

In essence, if Obama wins the lawsuit military members will STILL be able to vote just as early. Of course they will not be disenfranchised, and of course Fraud doesn't know what he's talking about.

Pink Slip

servicemen think about as much of Him, as Commander In Chief, as a hog thinks about how it smells !

Thieving, lying, job killing, net worth killing, home value killing, Dims, know how to use Liberal courts with Liberal Judges, to make voting as difficult as possible.
Except, that is when an I.D., is required.
THEN , its all about "disenfranchising", other equally stupid Dims !!

The "brains" of Liberals are as convoluted as mud.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.