HUSTED REFUSES TO TAKE “NO” FOR AN ANSWER Chief Elections Officer Asks Supreme Court To Help Him Suppress African-American Votes
Columbus — Innovation Ohio, a progressive think tank headquartered in Columbus, today accused Secretary of State Jon Husted of betraying the core mission of his office by appealing a ruling by the U.S. 6th Circuit Court that prohibits him from barring early voting on the last weekend before the election. Last Thursday, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a previous ruling by a federal district court judge which overturned Husted’s order barring voting on the three days prior to Election Day. In 2008, some 93,000 Ohioans — a significant portion of whom were African-American — voted on the final weekend. [Read more…]Husted to appeal weekend voting ruling to US Supreme Court
There has been a major development in the fight over early voting that will send a new Ohio law to the US Supreme Court. Over the past month, Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted has been fighting a lawsuit challenging a new Ohio law that prohibits voting on the final three days before an election to all but military voters. Opponents argued the law, passed by a GOP majority in the Ohio legislature, arbitrarily elevates the voting rights of one class of voters over all others, and two federal courts have agreed. After Husted’s latest defeat in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, where a three-judge panel restored the right to open the polls to County Boards of Elections, Husted — instead of issuing a directive ordering county boards to open — has apparently gone the other way. Citing what he called a “stunning ruling” that called for equal treatment of all voters by granting discretion to county boards to open on the final weekend, Husted announced he would appeal the ruling to the United States Supreme Court. If Husted is concerned, as he has often claimed, about uniformity of access to the polls across Ohio’s 88 Counties, a more direct approach would have been for him to issue a directive setting standard hours for all County Boards. Instead, Husted has elected to delay further, elevating the matter to the highest court in the land, and continuing the standoff over when in-person early voting in Ohio will end. As we noted yesterday, a new study shows that in-person early voting is disproportionately favored by African-American voters, who typically favor Democrats. The federal appeals court spoke of the benefits of weekend voting in its ruling, observing that voters may not be able to vote during weekday hours or on election day because of work schedules. Those voters are still in limbo today as a result of Husted’s actions.
Early, in-person voting especially important to Ohio’s African-American community
INFOGRAPHIC: Voter Access in Ohio: Moving in the Wrong Direction
Ruling affirms last weekend voting in Obama v Husted case
[Video] Votes at Risk in Ohio – IO Report Overview
Big first day of early voting in Ohio
- 1,035 votes cast in Akron (more than twice the number from 2008) – Akron Beacon Journal
- 816 votes cast in Cincinnati/Hamilton County (up from 644 in 2008) – Cincinnati Enquirer
- 1,396 votes cast in Columbus/Franklin County (up from 725 in 2008) – Columbus Dispatch
- 2,339 votes cast in the Dayton region – Dayton Daily News
- 928 votes cast in Toledo/Lucas County (up from 500 in 2008) – Toledo Blade
- 1,460 votes cast in the Youngstown region – Youngstown Vindicator
Report: Votes at Risk – How Ohio Fits Into the Context of a Battleground Nation
Research Overview
When Martin Luther King Jr. famously observed in 1968 that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice,” he was perhaps partly reflecting on the passage — just three years earlier — of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which outlawed discriminatory voting practices designed to disenfranchise African-Americans. Yet today, nearly 50 years later, America is sadly witnessing a renewed assault on voting rights. But this assault is not confined to the states of the old Confederacy; it is being waged in a majority of the so-called “swing states” that will determine the outcome of the 2012 presidential election. Most political analysts agree that Florida, Ohio, Virginia, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nevada and Colorado are this year’s key battlegrounds. As we shall see, Republicans in six of these nine states are actively pursuing restrictive voting laws. While the particulars of the voter suppression effort vary from state to state — photo ID laws in some states; a reduction in early voting hours in others — the overall impact is severe enough to cause observers like The Atlantic’s Andrew Cohen to suggest we are “bending the arc of history away from justice.” What accounts for these voter suppression efforts? Who is pushing them and how successful have they been? The answer to the first question is voter turnout in the 2008 elections. That year, a record 61.6% of eligible voters turned out, not only propelling Barack Obama into the White House (with 53% of the popular vote and a landslide in the Electoral College), but also electing Democratic majorities in both the U.S. House and Senate. Republicans, of course, were not happy. So when the political winds shifted in 2010 and Republicans not only retook control of the U.S. House — but more importantly, gained 11 new Governorships and majorities in 20 state legislatures — they began a concerted and coordinated effort to strip millions of people from the voting rolls before the 2012 election. Naturally, they focused on those whom they suspected would be most likely to support Democrats — minorities, students, the poor, the elderly, and people with disabilities. And let there be no mistake: the Republican voter suppression effort has been both aggressive and successful. Since 2011, at least 180 bills have been introduced in 41 state legislatures that aim to restrict voting. In 17 states, these legislative or executive actions have the potential to influence the 2012 elections. Literally millions of Americans, all of whom have a constitutionally-protected right to vote, have effectively been disenfranchised. Though courts have overturned a few of the most egregious suppression efforts, the bulk of these new laws remain in place. This analysis will focus on and summarize the disenfranchisement gambits in six battleground states: Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, New Hampshire and Wisconsin. Since these six together account for a total of 94 electoral votes, suppressing the vote in them could well determine who will become America’s next President. Read the Report Here Visit our Ohio Voter Rights Information Page. You’ll find an infographic that links to a timeline showing the rise – and current fall – of voter rights and easy access to the ballot in Ohio. You’ll also find links to important documents and an archive of IO’s blog posts and other information on the subject. Read our Press Release HereReport: Votes at Risk – Ohio’s Context in a Battleground Nation
IO: Voting Rights Under Assault in 6 of 9 Swing States
Study Highlights Voter Suppression Efforts in OH, FL, PA, WI, VA, NH
Columbus: Innovation Ohio, a progressive think tank headquartered in Columbus, released a report today, “Votes at Risk,” which finds that Republican Governors, state legislatures, and other elected officials have systematically pursued voter suppression efforts in six of the nation’s nine battleground “swing states.” Given that Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Virginia and New Hampshire account for 94 electoral votes (out of the 270 needed to win the Presidency), lowering overall turnout in those states could have a major impact on the 2012 election. Visit our report page here. While the precise suppression mechanisms vary from state to state, “photo ID laws in some states; a reduction in early voting hours in others,” the study says they constitute “a concerted and coordinated effort to strip millions of people from the voting rolls before the presidential election.” Targeted are “those most likely to support Democrats –minorities, students, the poor, the elderly, and people with disabilities.” The report notes that although Republicans routinely justify voting restrictions as necessary to combat “voter fraud,” such fraud is exceedingly rare. Even in the hotly contested 2004 Presidential race, for example, Ohio’s rate of voter fraud “was just 0.00004% —about the same frequency as people being struck dead by lightning.” [Read more…]- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next Page »