The Columbus Dispatch-I think-is correctly calling what this wrangling between the Ohio Republican Party and her office is doing. Some of the things that have come out of that case is very disturbing. I just hope that whomever wins Ohio does so by a large margin, because I shudder to think what will happen if it comes down to a few thousand votes.
---
Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner made a serious blunder by failing to give county elections boards the names of new voters whose registration records don't match state and federal data. She should comply with a federal court order to release the information within a week instead of appealing the case to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, as she has said she intends to do.
By trying to prevent county boards of elections from investigating discrepancies in new voter registrations, she is putting partisan considerations ahead of the public interest in fair elections. And in doing that, the Democrat is inviting a direct comparison to her Republican predecessor, J. Kenneth Blackwell, who undercut his credibility as an impartial election arbiter because of his partisan decisions leading up to the 2004 presidential election.
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2008/10/12/misma...
The Court of Appeals has already said that Brunner was right.
"With less than a month until the election, and less than two weeks until the beginning of counting absentee ballots, the secretary cannot be required to undertake the extensive reprogramming and other changes to the election mechanics without complete disruption of the electoral process in Ohio," the majority said in its opinion. "The irreparable harm to the voting public caused by the district court's order is equally clear."
"The ... Court of Appeals has halted another partisan lawsuit in Ohio," she said. "Under the Help America Vote Act, this verification process is not and has not been permitted to be used to determine a voter's eligibility."
People like Pink Slip
everyone to read the Columbus Dispatch editorial, because in PinkSlip's hackish nature, fails to see the point, the Dispatch hits it on the head.
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2008/10/12/misma...
Highlights of the court's opinion:
Specifically, we find it striking that the matching mechanisms at issue have been in place at least as early as 2007, yet ORP has waited until now to bring this action, now claiming that the time pressures involved require the federal courts to act quickly in its favor. ORP itself created the sudden rush for determination, and we are not prepared to reward it for forcing all parties into this unenviable position.
…We hold that the district court abused its discretion in issuing the TRO and we grant the motion to stay the TRO.
The National Voter Registration Act ("NVRA"), however, does not permit registered voters to be removed based on computer matching… Indeed, the NVRA requires that "any program the purpose of which is to systematically remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters" must be completed at least 90 days prior to a federal election. Therefore, it is likely that the district court's TRO would cause the Secretary to violate both HAVA and the NVRA.
Given the fact that hurriedly reprogramming the database could lead to the purging of validly registered voters, we believe that it is in the best interest of the citizens of Ohio that we issue a stay of the district court's intrusive TRO.
Rather than undertake such fact-finding [regarding potential voter fraud], the district court, citing two newspaper articles, merely assumed that there will be wide-spread voter fraud absent the issuing of a TRO. Given the shaky ground on which this voter-fraud determination rests, we believe that this unsubstantiated fear does not warrant the district court's intrusion into the established state practice.
People like Pink Slip
Chris, I am not trying to be a shit, but PLEASE just use "who". You can't be wrong and if you don't know how to use "whom", you will be safe and sagacious just using "who". Brian, please look at this.
Pete,
If I'm the Brian you're referring to, I can't be sure if who or whom is correct. I always had to consult Strunk and White's "Elements of Style". My copy is in a box of stuff I brought home from my office and I'm too lazy to dig through it.
"People like Pink Slip". I want to know if Pink Slip is a person. He/she/it seems to mindlessly respond with Democratic Party talking points much like a machine.
Brian, the rule of thumb is:
use "who" when it is the subject of a verb (who needs this, a man who needs this, etc.)
use "whom" when it is the object of a verb or preposition (the man whom I see, whomever you choose, with whomever you talk, etc.).
Actually, it's just a lot simpler always to just use "who" and forget about "whom". Who is always correct in any position and in every case. you can't go wrong with "who".
No worries.
http://www.in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm?id=218215§ion=news
Maybe Ohio won't even matter. I think a Dem. has won ND all of three times. Probably won't actually happen, but still interesting it's even that close.