2 Fed judges rule against GOP on vote challengers

[BarnOwl]

Democratic voters in Ohio launched two federal suits against vote challengers and the rulings have been made on both..

Up in Akron, a Republican-appointed Federal Judge ruled that vote challengers can remain in the polling places, but only as monitors. Apparently this means they they cannot challenge a voter. (So what would be the point of the challengers being in there at all, I wonder?)

Meanwhile, down in Cincinatti, a Clinton appointee Federal Judge ruled that voter challenges are unconstitutional and are barred from the polling places altogether.

According to FOX news, the GOP will challenge the Cininatti decision.

Now, since these rulings were made in federal courts, I should imagine the rulings would apply to all 50 states, pending the appeal to the Supreme Court, of course.

Will the Supreme Court side with Bush again?

Another interesting sidelight. Rehnquist is out rehabbing his thyroid cancer treatment. What happens if the 8 remaining justices split down the middle, as they well might? Will the Cincinatti ruling become the law of the land?

[Jonathan Chance]

In the event of a split court (because of absence) then the lower court ruling stands.

In any event, with the election tomorrow by the time an appeal can be heard I wouldn't be surprised if this became a fait accompli.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by Antiochus

Now, since these rulings were made in federal courts, I should imagine the rulings would apply to all 50 states, pending the appeal to the Supreme Court, of course.

Incorrect assumption.

[NurseCarmen]

Originally Posted by acsenray

Incorrect assumption.

Can you enlighten us? Does it stand for the region for which the court presides then? A little more information if you are informed, please.

[rfgdxm]

Originally Posted by NurseCarmen

Can you enlighten us? Does it stand for the region for which the court presides then? A little more information if you are informed, please.

Yes, it would be precedent just in that region the court presides.

[Mal Adroit]

Originally Posted by Antiochus

Another interesting sidelight. Rehnquist is out rehabbing his thyroid cancer treatment. What happens if the 8 remaining justices split down the middle, as they well might?

I believe it was acknowledged last week that Rehnquist can contribute his ruling from home, if it comes down to it. (Will hunt down a cite if skeptics there be.)

I always suspected the Chief Justice was phoning it in!

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by NurseCarmen

Can you enlighten us? Does it stand for the region for which the court presides then? A little more information if you are informed, please.

A federal district court's decision applies only to the specific parties and, in the case of a statutory challenge, only to the specific statute that is under question. It does not apply to similar statutes in other states.

A federal appeals court's holding must be followed by all the district courts in its circuit.

[Bricker]

A federal district court doesn't create precedent at all. The court's ruling applies only to the case in which it was made.

The federal circuit courts do make precedential rulings which are good law in their own circuits. Other circuits may find these ruling persuasive, or they may disregard them.

The Supreme Court's rulings are the only ones binding on the whole country.

[kimera]

Pst, it's Cincinnati.

I would be VERY surprised if Cincinnati doesn't go for Bush with or without these challengers.

[Acsenray]

It's not Cincinnati; it's Ohio. The law in question is a state law.

[Acsenray]

It's not Cincinnati; it's Ohio. The law in question is a state law. If the court says it's unconstitutional, then it's unconstitutional. There's no way to apply such a holding just to Cincinnati.

(Even if we were talking just about Cincinnati, Cincinnati itself is majority Democratic, while the surrounding suburbs and countryside are majority Republican. There would be plenty of opportunities to challenge voters who support either party.)

[BarnOwl]

Originally Posted by Bricker

A federal district court doesn't create precedent at all. The court's ruling applies only to the case in which it was made.

The federal circuit courts do make precedential rulings which are good law in their own circuits. Other circuits may find these ruling persuasive, or they may disregard them.

The Supreme Court's rulings are the only ones binding on the whole country.

SCOTUS could hear this case tomorrow based on extreme need (or whatever the lawyerly term is). If they do and then rule in favor of the lower court's decision, it would then apply to the entire country?

[NurseCarmen]

Originally Posted by Antiochus

SCOTUS could hear this case tomorrow based on extreme need (or whatever the lawyerly term is). If they do and then rule in favor of the lower court's decision, it would then apply to the entire country?

I think it would be mostly moot by tomorrow. They'd have to get something done today. I think that is highly doubtful.

[BarnOwl]

Originally Posted by NurseCarmen

I think it would be mostly moot by tomorrow. They'd have to get something done today. I think that is highly doubtful.

How long did it take The Supremes to rule on the Florida boondoggle? They could work even faster for this case.

So let's say the Court and the lawyers get something done today and the judges rule mañana. It would be a glorious opportunity for the SCOTUS to end voter harassment of this type.

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

I know this varies from state to state, but as I understand it "challengers" are not just there to challenge voters they think are not valid.

In my state, a challenger may observe any part of the process pretty closely (except the actual marking of the ballots by voters). A poll watcher has to stay in a public area, but a challenger may be behind the tables with the poll workers. They are not allowed to touch any materials, but they get a much closer view of what's going on. So while not being allowed to challenge voters may take away a big part of their purpose, it doesn't make them irrelevant. At least not around here.

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

Originally Posted by Antiochus

It would be a glorious opportunity for the SCOTUS to end voter harassment of this type.

What kind of voter harrassment are you talking about? Is ALL challenging of voters harrassment? To my knowledge, this is a pretty broad ruling, not allowing them to challenge any voters whatsoever. There can be valid reasons to challenge voters and I don't think that's harrassment.

I certainly would support some strong language limiting how voters can be challenged (ending, for example, what happened in GA where something like 90% of the voters in one county who were Hispanic were challenged in advance on the basis of citizenship, because some yokel assumed every voter named Mendez and Garcia must surely be an alien with faked registration). I'd like to see challengers be required to have good cause, etc. But I don't think it's a good thing to ban all of it, and I don't equate such a ban with ending voter harrassment.

[rfgdxm]

Originally Posted by CrankyAsAnOldMan

I know this varies from state to state, but as I understand it "challengers" are not just there to challenge voters they think are not valid.

In my state, a challenger may observe any part of the process pretty closely (except the actual marking of the ballots by voters). A poll watcher has to stay in a public area, but a challenger may be behind the tables with the poll workers. They are not allowed to touch any materials, but they get a much closer view of what's going on. So while not being allowed to challenge voters may take away a big part of their purpose, it doesn't make them irrelevant. At least not around here.

It was the same here in MI when I was an election inspector. One possible reasons for challengers present is to watch to make sure the election inspectors aren't altering or discarding votes.

[Zoe]

I may have misunderstood, but I think that "challengers" are there for the purpose of challenging the credentials of voters and their right to vote. They are not the same as the observers who watch to see that no hanky-panky is going on by polling officials.

Polling officials can still challenge uncredentialed voters. (Maybe that is what the provisional ballots are for.) It's just that John Q. Public cannot go into a polling place and challenge someone's right to vote.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Polycarp]

Originally Posted by Bricker

A federal district court doesn't create precedent at all. The court's ruling applies only to the case in which it was made.

The federal circuit courts do make precedential rulings which are good law in their own circuits. Other circuits may find these ruling persuasive, or they may disregard them.

The Supreme Court's rulings are the only ones binding on the whole country.

Rick's statement here may be misunderstood, not because he's in error, but because it's not completely clear.

Any ruling from any court creates a precedent. The issue is, is that precedent binding on other courts? And the answer is, only those courts "below" it in the appellate pecking order.

Certainly a court hearing a case in which it is alleged that Jones violated standard contract X with Smith in respect of term Y is not going to be decided ab initio by the court hearing it -- lawyers for both sides will be citing precedents galore in support of their contentions.

And the judge may consider those precedents compelling, or not, as he chooses.

Except if the ruling came from a court directly "above" him. In that case, and that case alone, it's binding, and must be incorporated in his decision.

So: Any Federal District Court sets precedents. But they're not binding on other Federal courts, except for the rare instance where a Federal magistrate is ruling on an issue (speeding ticket on a Federal reservation, for example) which has been decided in a Federal District Court "above" him. Any district court may consider, and either accept or refuse precedent from, the ruling of another district court in a similar case.

Federal appellate courts -- Circuit Courts -- hear appeals from a multi-state "circuit," and their decisions are binding precedent on the federal courts in the states in that circuit, and where a federal question is present, in the state courts of those states.

If you recall the arguments about SCOTUS considering foreign precedents a few months back, that was a case where SCOTUS was taking guidance as to how other countries dealt with similar issues. It did not, and could not, constitute binding precedent* in U.S. courts, but it did serve to help them form their opinions, in the non-binding sense of precedent.










* It's plausible that there might be rare instances where the treaty-making power could create a valid foreign precedent that would be binding as regards matters related to nationals of that foreign state who become parties to cases in U.S. courts. That's pretty hypothetical, but it would constitute an exception to this statement.

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

Originally Posted by Zoe

I may have misunderstood, but I think that "challengers" are there for the purpose of challenging the credentials of voters and their right to vote. They are not the same as the observers who watch to see that no hanky-panky is going on by polling officials.

Polling officials can still challenge uncredentialed voters. (Maybe that is what the provisional ballots are for.) It's just that John Q. Public cannot go into a polling place and challenge someone's right to vote.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Like I said, it varies from state to state. In Ohio, they may be focused exclusively on registration of voters, but in Michigan they may challenge any of the election procedures, such as whether electioneering is taking place within 100 feet of the polls, etc.

[BarnOwl]

Originally Posted by CrankyAsAnOldMan

What kind of voter harrassment are you talking about? Is ALL challenging of voters harrassment? To my knowledge, this is a pretty broad ruling, not allowing them to challenge any voters whatsoever. There can be valid reasons to challenge voters and I don't think that's harrassment.

I certainly would support some strong language limiting how voters can be challenged (ending, for example, what happened in GA where something like 90% of the voters in one county who were Hispanic were challenged in advance on the basis of citizenship, because some yokel assumed every voter named Mendez and Garcia must surely be an alien with faked registration). I'd like to see challengers be required to have good cause, etc. But I don't think it's a good thing to ban all of it, and I don't equate such a ban with ending voter harrassment.

How about this exerpt from

http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/04/10/edi04079.html


"But nothing will be as disgraceful an assault on democracy as the hiring of 2,500 "rent a Republican thugs" -- at $100 a day -- to intentionally intimidate minority and other Democratic voters from exercising their democratic and constitutional right by creating chaos and a menacing environment through challenging voters in Democratic (primarily minority) districts in Ohio. Such an onslaught of challenges on election day has the intent of tying up polling booths through lengthy challenges (a process that was successful in dooming the ill-fated voter recount in Florida in 2000 even before the Supreme Court stepped in), thus forcing voters to abandon unfathomable waits as each voter is challenged, requiring a lengthy review process of each individual's right to vote. Secondly, the very presence of hostile GOP thugs -- and the boastful public promotion of this strategy by the Republican Party of Ohio (at the behest of Karl Rove, you can be sure) -- is meant to keep fearful minority views from coming to the voting booths in Ohio at all. This is Jim Crow redux."

And if you want more Google on Ohio voter suppression tactics

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Antiochus

How about this exerpt from

http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/04/10/edi04079.html


"But nothing will be as disgraceful an assault on democracy as the hiring of 2,500 "rent a Republican thugs" -- at $100 a day -- to intentionally intimidate minority and other Democratic voters from exercising their democratic and constitutional right by creating chaos and a menacing environment through challenging voters in Democratic (primarily minority) districts in Ohio. Such an onslaught of challenges on election day has the intent of tying up polling booths through lengthy challenges (a process that was successful in dooming the ill-fated voter recount in Florida in 2000 even before the Supreme Court stepped in), thus forcing voters to abandon unfathomable waits as each voter is challenged, requiring a lengthy review process of each individual's right to vote. Secondly, the very presence of hostile GOP thugs -- and the boastful public promotion of this strategy by the Republican Party of Ohio (at the behest of Karl Rove, you can be sure) -- is meant to keep fearful minority views from coming to the voting booths in Ohio at all. This is Jim Crow redux."

And if you want more Google on Ohio voter suppression tactics

And what evidence do you have that these people are hired as "thugs" to intentionally intimidate? If their purpose is to ensure that voters are legit, this seems like a legal and laudable purpose. Where do you (or where does the author you quote) get the evidence from which to draw the inference that these are "thugs" and hired to "intentionally" intimidate voters.

And why are minorities so skittish? There was a police officer at my polling place this morning, and, being Hispanic, I immediately began shaking with fear and left before casting my vote.

Oh, wait. No I didn't, because I have nothing to fear from police. I stood in line and cast my ballot.

[tnetennba]

Originally Posted by Bricker

And what evidence do you have that these people are hired as "thugs" to intentionally intimidate? If their purpose is to ensure that voters are legit, this seems like a legal and laudable purpose. Where do you (or where does the author you quote) get the evidence from which to draw the inference that these are "thugs" and hired to "intentionally" intimidate voters.

Why don't you just call up the Ohio GOP and volunteer to be a poll watcher in Shaker Heights... when they're done laughing, you can ask them why they're only worried about fraud in black neighborhoods.

[Early Out]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Oh, wait. No I didn't, because I have nothing to fear from police. I stood in line and cast my ballot.

You might have felt differently if you were a first-time voter, or were someone with less education and self-confidence. And how would you have reacted if, because of voter challenges, you faced a 6-hour wait to cast your ballot?

[AZCowboy]

Looks like we have a new ruling from a federal appeals court in the case, permitting the "challengers" to be present in the polling stations. Link

[Early Out]

Originally Posted by Bricker

And what evidence do you have that these people are hired as "thugs" to intentionally intimidate? If their purpose is to ensure that voters are legit, this seems like a legal and laudable purpose. Where do you (or where does the author you quote) get the evidence from which to draw the inference that these are "thugs" and hired to "intentionally" intimidate voters.

Might it have something to do with the fact that these champions of liberty are concentrating their efforts in heavily Democratic precincts?

The GOP has a well-known history of trying to surpress minority voting. Why are we to believe that they have suddenly gotten religion, and have become an organization dedicated to ensuring the purity of the voting process, outcome be damned?

The very idea is laughable.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by cricetus

Why don't you just call up the Ohio GOP and volunteer to be a poll watcher in Shaker Heights... when they're done laughing, you can ask them why they're only worried about fraud in black neighborhoods.

OK - please provide a cite that GOP challengers are going only to black neighborhoods.

Then review the phony addresses provided by the voter registrations collected by Democrats and returned as undeliverable by the post office. These phony addresses seem to concentrate... where, exactly?

If I were in charge of allocating challengers, I would be placing them wherever there were phony voter registrations in large numbers. If that includes Shaker Heights, I would expect them to be there.

[Bricker]

By the way -- not only did the 6th Circuit overturn the decision banning challengers, but the US Supreme Court declined to stay the 6th circuit. That decision is made by one Supreme Court justice; each justice is responsible for stays in a given circuit. The responsible justice here? Evil Rehnquist? Evil Scalia? Evil Thomas?

Nope. John Paul Stevens, one of the Court's most liberal members.

[rjung]

All that shows is that Stevens puts his nonpartisan duties above his personal interests; perhaps you find that concept alien, Bricker?

It's also worth noting that the two judges in the 6th Circuit who voted to overturn the ban were Republican appointees -- one from Ronnie Reagan, and one from G. W. Bush. himself. I'll be surprised if a Republican steps forward to denounce these "activist judges," however.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by rjung

All that shows is that Stevens puts his nonpartisan duties above his personal interests; perhaps you find that concept alien, Bricker?

It's also worth noting that the two judges in the 6th Circuit who voted to overturn the ban were Republican appointees -- one from Ronnie Reagan, and one from G. W. Bush. himself. I'll be surprised if a Republican steps forward to denounce these "activist judges," however.

How are they "activist"? They strictly interpreted the law.

Repeat after me: "activist" does not mean "decision I don't like."

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Bricker

How are they "activist"? They strictly interpreted the law.

Repeat after me: "activist" does not mean "decision I don't like."

By the way -- the two federal judges who ruled that challengers were prohibited? Also not "activist." Although they did overrule the law, they did so by invoking a clear and well-understood Constitutional principle. They didn't legislate rights out of thin air. So far, I'd say there has not been any activism from the bench on either side.

[rjung]

Background on the two judges in question:

James Ryan - appointed by Ronald Reagan - notable for: dissenting in 2003 against 6th Circuit panel ruling that barred 10 Commandments from Kentucky courtrooms; wrote in his dissent "The influence of religion upon American law and government is a fact of American history and politics that has been widely recognized by scholars, jurists, legislators, presidents, and, not least, the founders themselves...In his Farewell Address to the nation, George Washington stated that religion was not only a part of the foundation of our law and government, it was a necessity."

John Rogers - appointed by George W. Bush - notable for: writing the initial draft of the 1986 Thornburgh brief that urged the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade (as well as to uphold requirements requiring abortion providers to give their clients information about abortion alternatives and requiring that a minor girl obtain the consent of her parents, or a judge, before obtaining an abortion)

Real centrists there, sho' yeah.

[Apos]

It isn't just a matter of state law. The Republican party is under an injunction not to target African Americans for voter suppression, which is just what they've been doing.

When you look at the broad picture: white suburbanites paid to come into the inner city to keep an eye on all those scary, fraud-prone Africans, it doesn't look so pretty. Given that the republicans never expected to find many illegitimate voters, and their only real intention was to hurt turnout, I'd say that it looks considerably worse than not pretty.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by cricetus

Why don't you just call up the Ohio GOP and volunteer to be a poll watcher in Shaker Heights... when they're done laughing, you can ask them why they're only worried about fraud in black neighborhoods.

Can't say for sure. Possibly because one of the recruiters was paid in crack cocaine or the fact that some districts had more registered voters than adults qualified to vote.

I didn't know what a "challenger" was so I asked the precinct workers what it involved. Basically, by law anyone can challenge a voter's credentials. The usual response is an ID check. Had I known it ahead of time I would have tagged the guy in front of me. His signature was just short of an X. I would have liked to see him produce an ID. My BS radar went off on this guy and his signature didn't do anything to quell it.

I didn't realize they had records of my signature to compare when I signed in so I felt a little more secure. My voting precinct has always been run by people that appear to have enough common sense to come in out of the rain so I'm confident things went well there.

I have always been in favor of mandatory identification using a thumb print. If 2 prints come out the same then the voters get contacted to verify their votes.