Someone just tell me why verifying voter registration applications before an election is such an unreasonable demand. Then tell Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, who has filed an appeal to the US Supreme Court to block an Appellate Court ruling that she do precisely that.
Ohio's top elections chief has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in a dispute over whether the state is required to do more to help counties verify voter eligibility, a spokesman for her office said Thursday.Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, a Democrat, filed an appeal the high court late Wednesday, said spokesman Jeff Ortega.
On Tuesday, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati sided with the Ohio Republican Party and ordered Brunner to set up a system that provides names of newly registered voters whose driver's license numbers or Social Security numbers don't match records in other government databases.
The GOP contends the information for counties will help prevent fraud.
At least 200,000 newly registered voters have mismatched data, according to an initial review by Brunner's office.
Brunner's office said Wednesday that she would comply with the lower court's ruling. Ortega said the office would release a statement later Thursday on why she chose to file an appeal.
Brunner has called the issue a veiled attempt at disenfranchising voters and said other checks exist to help determine eligibility.
Permalink | Linking Blogs | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
2008 Presidential Race
Comments (13)
I think there was a graphic... (Below threshold)1. Posted by proof | October 17, 2008 1:26 AM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
I think there was a graphic on Fox News that explains it. They showed a picture of Ms. Brunner, and next to it were the words:
Jennifer Brunner (D-OH)
1. Posted by proof | October 17, 2008 1:26 AM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on October 17, 2008 01:26
2. Posted by Clint | October 17, 2008 2:09 AM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Tar and Feathers time.
2. Posted by Clint | October 17, 2008 2:09 AM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on October 17, 2008 02:09
3. Posted by OhioVoter | October 17, 2008 7:02 AM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
What will be truly interesting is the election of 2010 when Brunner is up for reelection.
She has made no friends in the last fews years even among Democrats. It will be interesting to see if she delivers Ohio for Obama if they will return the favor in what will surely be a tough reelection campaign in 2010.
I'm guessing she will join the crowd under the bus.
3. Posted by OhioVoter | October 17, 2008 7:02 AM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on October 17, 2008 07:02
4. Posted by Justrand
| October 17, 2008 9:38 AM | Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Brunner is an "un-repentant" election fraud enabler...frankly making her damn near as big a Domestic Terrorist as William Ayers. Ayers sought to destroy our institutions DIRECTLY, by bombing them. She is seeking to destroy them INDIRECTLY...from inside the system! She is a disgrace, and a threat to fair elections! Period!
4. Posted by Justrand
| October 17, 2008 9:38 AM |
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on October 17, 2008 09:38
5. Posted by hyperbolist | October 17, 2008 11:32 AM | Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
A terrorist, JR? Jeez, I thought I was fond of hyperbole.
She just sucks at her job. She's not a murderer (or an attempted murderer). If she can't verify the registration forms, or doesn't want to, they should find someone who can (even if that means hiring additional staff for election periods).
5. Posted by hyperbolist | October 17, 2008 11:32 AM |
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Posted on October 17, 2008 11:32
6. Posted by iurockhead | October 17, 2008 12:07 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
The end justifies the means, no matter how nasty or underhanded the means are. She is no different than a cop who has taken bribes to look the other way when crimes are committed. Disgusting.
6. Posted by iurockhead | October 17, 2008 12:07 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on October 17, 2008 12:07
7. Posted by iurockhead | October 17, 2008 12:12 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
She just sucks at her job. She's not a murderer (or an attempted murderer). If she can't verify the registration forms, or doesn't want to, they should find someone who can (even if that means hiring additional staff for election periods).
5. Posted by hyperbolist | October 17, 2008 11:32 AM
If she just sucked at her job, she would try to do as ordered, and fail. She is willfully refusing to do her job, and is aiding and abetting what is effectively a criminal enterprise, the organized voter fraud in a closely divided swing state. That's not incompetence, it's malfeasance.
7. Posted by iurockhead | October 17, 2008 12:12 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on October 17, 2008 12:12
8. Posted by hyperbolist | October 17, 2008 1:11 PM | Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
Well, it's moot because the SCOTUS sides with the disenfranchisement camp (Dems) against the fraud camp (GOP).
No big surprise, what with the liberal majority on the highest court. Heh.
8. Posted by hyperbolist | October 17, 2008 1:11 PM |
Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
Posted on October 17, 2008 13:11
9. Posted by Larry | October 17, 2008 4:11 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I am of the opinion that McCain's job just got harder. If you look at the number of elections which have been decided by just a few thousands of votes in this divided country, SCOTUS' decision today may have come close to handing Ohio to ACORN.
9. Posted by Larry | October 17, 2008 4:11 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 17, 2008 16:11
10. Posted by hyperbolist | October 17, 2008 5:38 PM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Hardly a "liberal" decision, though (which is not to say it isn't sound legal reasoning):
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/237934.php
10. Posted by hyperbolist | October 17, 2008 5:38 PM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on October 17, 2008 17:38
11. Posted by SCSIwuzzy | October 17, 2008 6:17 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Ah, TPM, that bastion of bias free analysis and nary an agenda to be found anywhere on the site.
11. Posted by SCSIwuzzy | October 17, 2008 6:17 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 17, 2008 18:17
12. Posted by hyperbolist | October 17, 2008 7:44 PM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Well, SCSI, assuming you read it, you'd have realized that their delight at the SCOTUS ruling is tepid as it sets further precedent that could limit future civil rights initiatives.
It's actually a hell of a website, one of the best political blogs on the whole internetz. And yes, it's liberal--just like half of the voting public.
12. Posted by hyperbolist | October 17, 2008 7:44 PM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on October 17, 2008 19:44
13. Posted by OhioVoter | October 18, 2008 2:18 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Hyperbolist,
I hate to poke a hole in your giddiness, but all the Supreme Court said was that the Ohio GOP didn't have standing under the case law they used to bring their action.
They made no decision on the merits of their case and most assuredly did not exonerate Brunner or her actions.
Jennifer Brunner is a party hack who - I suspect - thinks that she will be the darling of "President Obama" is she delivers Ohio. Given his past history of *NOT* appointing women to positions of authority when he has had the opportunity, she should be expecting to be thrown under the bus with the rest of the people who no longer serve any purpose for him.
13. Posted by OhioVoter | October 18, 2008 2:18 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 18, 2008 14:18