Okay, now I'm pissed (The Ohio military thing)

[Drum God]

A friend just posted this article about Obama for America v. Husted in Ohio. The friend went on to say how horrible it was that Obama would deny members of the military the right to vote.

So, I patiently explained that the lawsuit is really not about taking three days of early voting away from military voters, but about how it's been taken away from non-military voters. Was she relieved to have this tidbit of information? Well, no.

Originally Posted by My Friend

I am for the Military no matter what, non-military still have the luxury of going when they have the "time" or want to. Don't take away from the military! We non-military have to learn to make efforts to be accountable for our duty to vote during the times alotted to us.

There are other folks on Facebook saying similar things. I mean, it's not nearly as important as chicken sandwiches, but it's got some people riled up.

So, the issue is that the new Ohio law says that early voting ends on Friday, November 2. However, military voters may submit early voting ballots until Monday, November 5. (The general election is on Tuesday, November 6.) The OFA v. Husted suit says that this violates the equal protection clause by creating two classes of voters. The proposed remedy is to simply allow all voters to cast early voting ballots until Monday. Somehow this gets twisted to denying military voters of three days of voting.

The whole worship of military guys gets my goat anyway. What the hell do they want, a friggin' cookie?! Go vote. Don't go vote. Whatever you do, do it before the deadline, whenever it is. Get over it. Damn.

Thanks for listening.

[Snite]

As a former member of the military (8 years Army Infantry) I have to say that the knee-jerk reaction people have to anything involving the military is so damned misguided and really tries my patience. You know what? I don't think there should be two classes of voters either. And the members of the military get plenty of time to vote, even in Iraq we were constantly reminded of absentee voting and who to get in touch with, and every NCO was instructed on who to send their soldiers to should they have questions (2008). So really, Dopers, don't worry about the military.

[foolsguinea]

So who's spreading the distortion now? Limbaugh, maybe one of the Fox blondes?

[Dr. Drake]

I find the increasing veneration of the military really creepy, from "support our troops" on. I don't mind the people who are just offering respect to people who work hard under dangerous conditions, or to those who devote their careers to important principles, but a lot of what I see goes beyond that into adulation. I keep thinking that this attitude would be really convenient should anyone ever attempt a coup.

That couldn't happen, of course: American Exceptionalism means that a coup is impossible, unlike those loser third-world countries.

[elucidator]

Google it, and scan. The usual suspects are all there, but the interesting thing is scanning the tag lines, more for what they don't say than for what they do. There is a preponderance of such wording as "Military Groups Upset About Obama blah blah blah...."

Nicely done, starting with a presumption of neutrality, its those guys, over there, who are upset, we're just telling you about it. Oh, the people who are upset are military, which means its the military who is upset, probably about some disrespect from dirty hippie peacefreak unpatriotic Dems.

Has there ever been an election when they didn't trot out this bullshit?

[MEBuckner]

Originally Posted by Drum God's friend

I am for the Military no matter what, non-military still have the luxury of going when they have the "time" or want to. Don't take away from the military! We non-military have to learn to make efforts to be accountable for our duty to vote during the times alotted to us.

Stuff like this makes me want to repeal the Third Amendment and start quartering platoons of Marines in certain people's houses.

[elucidator]

"Uncle Emery has a colorful way of expressing himself, dear. You see, a "cornhole" is like on the farm, its the hole you put the corn in. And a "reacharound" is passing the biscuits at the table, its not nice to refuse to give a reacharound. Now, run along and play. Over at Timmy's house...."

[kaylasdad99]

Maybe it's low blood sugar on my part, luci, but, as entertaining as I found that, I couldn't parse it as anything concerning this thread.

[Jragon]

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

Maybe it's low blood sugar on my part, luci, but, as entertaining as I found that, I couldn't parse it as anything concerning this thread.

Elucidator is responding to MEBuckner's joke that we should quarter the military in people's houses so they stop worshiping them. Elucidator is merely expressing one likely outcome of a parent having to explain the colorful language military types tend to use to their children.

[MEBuckner]

I'm also thinking the weekly grocery bills for a platoon of Marines would be kind of on the high side. But think of the savings to the taxpayers! We could cut taxes!

[Drum God]

I love it. I shall suggest it immediately. We must support our troops! Literally and directly.

My son in law is in the US Army. I love how some people think that our soldiers are these uber-patriotic guys. My SIL is just a grunt doing a job. Some days, his job is intensely scary. Most days, it's intensely boring. Every two weeks, he cashes his check and supports his wife and kid. He didn't enlist because of his patriotic fervor. He finished high school with a C average and couldn't stomach the idea of going to more school. He washed out of EMT training with the local ambulance service. So, it was off to the Army.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Has there ever been an election when they didn't trot out this bullshit?

2000, probably.

[Jragon]

I can see the Onion headline now:

"Tea Party Declares Third Amendment Unamerican"

[Kolak of Twilo]

Originally Posted by foolsguinea

So who's spreading the distortion now? Limbaugh, maybe one of the Fox blondes?

It appears Romney is repeating it now also.

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo

It appears Romney is repeating it now also.

Holy fuck is there anything that asshole won't say or do?

That's what I hate about Facebook- you get to find out that some of the people that you have vague memories of are flaming right wingers. Kind of robs you of some pleasant memories of your past acquaintances.

[Saint Cad]

Originally Posted by Drum God

He washed out of EMT training with the local ambulance service. So, it was off to the Army.

No offense and I don't know why, but something about that bothers me.

[Kolak of Twilo]

From a statement released by Romney:

"The brave men and women of our military make tremendous sacrifices to protect and defend our freedoms, and we should do everything we can to protect their fundamental right to vote," it reads. "I stand with the fifteen military groups that are defending the rights of military voters."

Romney said this in a speech on Saturday:

President Obama's lawsuit claiming it is unconstitutional for Ohio to allow servicemen and women extended early voting privileges during the state's early voting period is an outrage.

I say "pants on fire".

[Typo Knig]

A friend of mine posted this crap on FB. The first FB'er who commented on the picture said something like "I'm a Romney supporter and nobody wants Obama out of office more than I do, but this is not true." Several other people responded similarly, even providing links. Still the majority of the responses were complaining about how Obama hates America and he's a Keyan Muslim socialist and all that crap. Even when people on their side provided correct information.

That's Tuchman's definition of folly right there.

It's like the Republican candidates won't tell the truth no matter what, and a lot of their supporters (perhaps a majority) won't accept the truth no matter how little it hurts them. We are in Heinlien's Crazy Years.

[Mr. Moto]

Okay. Let's examine a few issues here.

First of all, there is legislation governing this - The Motor Voter law, the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act. It is likely that I missed other legislation in this area.

Anyway, it is the policy of the federal government to facilitate military and overseas voting to the greatest degree possible. Most other early voter and absentee voter issues are left to the states.

I do not see an equal protection issue here, as there are different laws in play here with differing jurisdiction. Moreover, if equal protection was to be applied, a longer voting time may still be required for overseas voters simply because of the added time required to get voting information and ballots to them.

Secondly, given the PR hit the Democrats took in 2000 in Florida when they sought to disqualify military ballots (whether rightly or wrongly) it is likely a good idea for them as a party to carefully consider whether this is a battle that will do them any good.

[Ravenman]

In 2010, the Obama's Justice Department sued states to force them to comply with a law requiring that absentee ballots for overseas voters (including troops) be mailed 45 days ahead of the election.

Of course, this is just another example of how Obama hates the military. I'm not sure how that is, of course, but every news item that involves the words "Obama" and "military" is really about the President hating our country, if you just read it in the correct way.

[Mr. Moto]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

In 2010, the Obama's Justice Department sued states to force them to comply with a law requiring that absentee ballots for overseas voters (including troops) be mailed 45 days ahead of the election.

This action by the Obama administration was commendable.

Of course, the administration is not the Obama campaign, and I do not know that this action by the campaign in Ohio was especially wise, given the issues I discussed above.

[elucidator]

From my good friends at ThinkProgress (links to sources embedded at site, so if they're lying, you have every opportunity to prove it.)

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...oting-in-ohio/

Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to restore in-person early voting for all Ohioans during the three days prior to Election Day – a right exercised by an estimated 93,000 Ohioans in the last presidential election. Ohio election law, as currently enacted by the State of Ohio and administered by Defendant Ohio Secretary of State, arbitrarily eliminates early voting during the three days prior to Election Day for most Ohio voters, a right previously available to all Ohio voters.

And furthermore:

Romney’s spokesman, Ryan Williams, in an interview Saturday could point to no place in Obama’s lawsuit that seeks to restrict the rights of military voters…

Romney’s legal counsel, Katie Biber, said creating two separate classes of Ohio voters does not violate the 14th Amendment, though she also did not offer evidence that Obama’s lawsuit would make it tougher for members of the military to vote…

Restricting the voting rights of military voters has fuck all to do with anything, here. It is an effort to keep the early voting privileges that Ohio voters have enjoyed in place. Is it a coincidence that the sorts of voters who most depend on early voting (outside of the military, that is) are the sorts of voters that Republicans would prefer not to see going to vote?

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Mr. Moto

Moreover, if equal protection was to be applied, a longer voting time may still be required for overseas voters simply because of the added time required to get voting information and ballots to them.

One of us is misunderstanding the basis of the lawsuit: you say it is about overseas voters having sufficient time to mail in absentee ballots; I understand this to be about an Ohio law that gives members of the military more time for in-person early voting than it gives to civilians. As I read the lawsuit, the proposed relief is:

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.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't find that there's anything in the lawsuit at all about mailed-in ballots.

[Mr. Moto]

Originally Posted by elucidator

From my good friends at ThinkProgress (links to sources embedded at site, so if they're lying, you have every opportunity to prove it.)

Maybe not lying, but they are wrong.

Before the changes to the law, local boards of election had the discretion to set their own early, in-person voting hours on the days before the election. And in-person voting on the weekend varied among the state's 88 counties.

The state's elections chief, Secretary of State Jon Husted, has argued that all counties should have the same early voting hours and be open on the same days. Husted and his fellow Republicans contend it's unfair that a voter in one county can cast an early ballot on a day when a voter in a neighboring county cannot.

So if some voters in Ohio could vote early right to Election Day, some could not. Now everybody has to get their votes in by Friday before the election, except for overseas votes which can come in anytime before Election Day.

Are states permitted to allow overseas and military voters extra time to vote? They certainly have been encouraged to do so in the past, right?

[elucidator]

Did you notice this part?

...An extended voting period is perceived as benefiting Democrats because it increases voting opportunities for those harder to reach for an Election Day turnout — Hispanics, blacks, new citizens and poor people....

You are aware, I trust, of the minor furor over state's rescinding "Sunday voting" privileges? And the reaction of the Black Congressional Caucus?

And notice that Husted's approach to fairness and equality between the counties is to be implemented by restricting voting, not by extending the maximum privilege to all, but by establishing the minimum to all. All of this taking place against a backdrop of Republican efforts all across the nation to make it more difficult for unreliable voters to cast ballots.

A coincidence, do you think?

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Snite

As a former member of the military (8 years Army Infantry) I have to say that the knee-jerk reaction people have to anything involving the military is so damned misguided and really tries my patience. You know what? I don't think there should be two classes of voters either. And the members of the military get plenty of time to vote, even in Iraq we were constantly reminded of absentee voting and who to get in touch with, and every NCO was instructed on who to send their soldiers to should they have questions (2008). So really, Dopers, don't worry about the military.

Thank you for that comment.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Mr. Moto

So if some voters in Ohio could vote early right to Election Day, some could not. Now everybody has to get their votes in by Friday before the election, except for overseas votes which can come in anytime before Election Day.

I'm not following this -- the lawsuit seems to pertain to in-person absentee voting. Talking about overseas voters and extra time needed to vote seems to be a different issue than making a distinction for in-person voting.

Ohio's secretary of state basically said it was unfair that voters in some counties got more time to vote than people in other counties. That makes sense to me, it isn't fair. But the remedy to that situation, normalizing early voting times across the state, then resulted in military voters having three more days to cast in-person absentee ballots than civilians do.

You seem to be defending giving military personnel more time to cast in-person absentee ballots; why shouldn't civilians be afforded the same extra three days? That's what I understand the lawsuit to be about.

[elucidator]

That is precisely the thing, in a nutshell. The suit is aimed at extending such privileges to all Ohio voters. The Republicans want to pretend its about restricting military voting, but, as the quote from Romney's legal counsel above shows, they have no basis for their accusation.

[Mr. Moto]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

I'm not following this -- the lawsuit seems to pertain to in-person absentee voting. Talking about overseas voters and extra time needed to vote seems to be a different issue than making a distinction for in-person voting.

Ohio's secretary of state basically said it was unfair that voters in some counties got more time to vote than people in other counties. That makes sense to me, it isn't fair. But the remedy to that situation, normalizing early voting times across the state, then resulted in military voters having three more days to cast in-person absentee ballots than civilians do.

You seem to be defending giving military personnel more time to cast in-person absentee ballots; why shouldn't civilians be afforded the same extra three days? That's what I understand the lawsuit to be about.

I think if Ohio wanted to extend early voting in those three days, that would be fine. If it didn't want to do so, that would be fine too. States have the responsibility to establish and maintain these voting systems - they can do things as they see fit.

The fact that certain members of the electorate with federal jobs have the right to vote in person or by mail right up to Election Day - that is a federal law binding on the states. It cannot mean that the federal government can mandate early voting for all - they can only do so for federal employees. That is their jurisdiction.

It is in no way an equal protection issue, IMHO. In fact these extensions for military and other overseas voters were put into place because of special difficulties with this voting. These have been alleviated in recent years to a degree, in part because of the laws I mentioned above and the expectations placed on states by them.

If the Obama campaign wants to lobby or sue for those additional days of early voting, they are free to do so. I think they would be better served by not mentioning military ballots in their argument. That is a separate issue.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Mr. Moto

In fact these extensions for military and other overseas voters were put into place because of special difficulties with this voting. These have been alleviated in recent years to a degree, in part because of the laws I mentioned above and the expectations placed on states by them.

Please, please tell me what "special difficulties" exist with respect to in-person early voting. We aren't talking about ballots mailed in from a war zone here.

If the Obama campaign wants to lobby or sue for those additional days of early voting, they are free to do so. I think they would be better served by not mentioning military ballots in their argument. That is a separate issue.

But it is the state of Ohio that made military early voting the issue, by passing a law which said that civilians are not entitled to the same number of days of in-person early voting as military or foreign service personnel are. I simply don't see the logic of having three days of early, in-person voting that are ONLY for certain Federal employees, to the exclusion of anyone else.

ETA: Would it be okay for Ohio to have the polls open on election day from 10am-5pm for civilians, but 6am-9pm for military personnel?

[akwally1]

I think the issue that has folks so irritated (myself included), is that the Ohio policy USED TO BE to allow all residents to vote up to three days ahead of time, but the Republican legislature pushed through a change this year to allow ONLY active-duty military. Here's the relevant part from TP.com

"Since 2005, Ohio has had in person early-voting in the three days prior to the election. This year, however, the Republican legislature in Ohio eliminated early voting during this period, except for members of the military. The Obama lawsuit is attempting to restore voting rights for all Ohioans, not restrict them for the military or any other group. "


If this is all true, then it's bullshit on two counts.

1. That the Republicans are trying to legislate more votes for themselves.
2. That Romney's campaign (and fox, etc.) are completely twisting the facts of this story, beyond their usual twisting, to make it sound like Obama is against the military.
3. Hi Opal


Mark

[Wesley Clark]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drake

I find the increasing veneration of the military really creepy, from "support our troops" on. I don't mind the people who are just offering respect to people who work hard under dangerous conditions, or to those who devote their careers to important principles, but a lot of what I see goes beyond that into adulation. I keep thinking that this attitude would be really convenient should anyone ever attempt a coup.

That couldn't happen, of course: American Exceptionalism means that a coup is impossible, unlike those loser third-world countries.

Yeah, plus the fact that we as citizens are expected to spout mindless pablum about foreign policy 'the military is in [insert country X] because of freedom'. You can't have a functioning democracy when the political class make foreign policy decisions based on ideology, natural resources, alliance building/destruction, long term planning, etc but the public are supposed to mindlessly spout platitudes like 'freedom' whenever we invade some country, irrelevant of the country or why we invaded.

[elucidator]

I wonder sometimes if one of the reasons Napoleon sold us the Louisiana Purchase because he realized if he didn't we'd just take it anyway.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Nah, Josephine needed some new jewelry.

[elucidator]

"Russian caviar? Russian? Why does it have to be Russian, its fish eggs!... Do you know how big Russia is? All right, all right, Russia! Jesus.....I'm gonna regret this..."

[Fiddle Peghead]

Originally Posted by elucidator

"Uncle Emery has a colorful way of expressing himself, dear. You see, a "cornhole" is like on the farm, its the hole you put the corn in. And a "reacharound" is passing the biscuits at the table, its not nice to refuse to give a reacharound. Now, run along and play. Over at Timmy's house...."

If I may elaborate a bit on this reference: R. Lee Ermey's drill seargent character's admonishment to a poor young boot camp recruit, in Full Metal Jacket: "I bet you're the kind of guy that would fuck a person in the ass and not even have the goddamn common courtesy to give him a reach-around. I'll be watching you."

[Drum God]

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

No offense and I don't know why, but something about that bothers me.

I think I misconstrued my son-in-law's motives and made them into something offensive. To his credit, my SIL has chosen a life of public service. After high school, he trained as an EMT with the county's ambulance service. However, he wants a career that is fueled by adrenaline. When he realized that the bulk of an EMT's life is working rather mundane calls, and even the exciting ones like bad car wrecks are not particularly risky for the EMT, he looked for something else. He found his kill-or-be-killed thrill in the infantry in the US Army. He served a tour in Afghanistan for about a year. Realizing that this was not a long term career, he has changed his MOS to Military Police. After his service, he hopes to get a job with a large, urban police department. He hopes that will fulfill his adrenaline fix. I worry that his search for a thrill will get him killed. I also worry that he will realize that even a big city cop's life is mostly paperwork and mundane calls. Still, I appreciate and honor his desire to serve his country and community.

[gamerunknown]

Well, he's certainly choosing appropriate avenues for risk taking.

[Drum God]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Well, he's certainly choosing appropriate avenues for risk taking.

Yeah, only now he's the father of my grandson. It's time to think a bit more like a family man, in my opinion.