# Republicans set to challenge Ohio voters **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 2, 2004, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-set-to-challenge-ohio-voters/272557 "2004-11-02T15:29:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-set-to-challenge-ohio-voters/272557/81 "2004-11-02T22:17:16Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > (emphasis provided by **kd99** ) And in response: > Given the qualifiers presented by **Brainiac4** , the request for a cite or a retraction need not be honored, as no assertion has been made. > > So sayeth the line judge. The problem with appointing yourself as a line judge, **kaylasdad99** , is that you may not be exactly impartial. You might be influenced in favor of Kerry. Indeed, given that it’s possible you are a convicted felon on multiple counts of fraud and theft, and given the distinct mathematical possibility that you may be actively working this election to coordinate voter fraud on a massive scale, it just seems that you may not be the right person to judge. I assume you’re OK with all that, given the qualifiers I put in… right? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-set-to-challenge-ohio-voters/272557/82 "2004-11-02T22:19:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The problem with appointing yourself as a line judge, **kaylasdad99** , is that you may not be exactly impartial. So, you’re saying there may be no problem at all with him as a line judge? Cool. Why are we still arguing over this, given that the Republicans acted nice and the Democrats’ fears were wrong? Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-set-to-challenge-ohio-voters/272557/83 "2004-11-02T22:22:09Z")
> [@MisterThyristor](#): > > I hope you realize that in Ohio, and in a number of other states, it is perfectly LEGAL for felons to vote. The only ones who are ineligible are the ones in prison. Felons are taken off the rolls during their time in prison, and they must re-register after they are released. But it is otherwise legal for them to vote. Noted. > [@Shayna](#): > > That depends on where those illegal aliens and felons are attempting to vote. If it’s in Florida, where the alien population is largely Cuban, the likely party to benefit will be the Republicans. Cite. Cite. And it might well have been the same wrt felons in Florida, had the bogus list of felons (that contained a whopping 61 people identified as Hispanic, out of 48,000 they were trying to purge) actually been used. Cite. I agree with your first point. I don’t follow the second. If the bogus list of felons had been used, then my hypothetical simply doesn’y apply – unless you’re suggesting that, by using the list only black felons would have been purged, and Hispanic felons - mostly Cubans - would still have voted, and they would have favored the right wing. If that’s the inference, I’m afraid I don’t follow the last leap in the chain. I contend that felons, even Cuban, will break for the left in higher proportion that for the right. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-set-to-challenge-ohio-voters/272557/84 "2004-11-02T22:26:58Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > So, you’re saying there may be no problem at all with him as a line judge? I might be. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_H](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a5b964/32.png) [@Bill\_H](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_H)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-set-to-challenge-ohio-voters/272557/85 "2004-11-02T22:28:36Z")
**kaylasdad99** wrote > [@](#): > > Given the qualifiers presented by Brainiac4, the request for a cite or a retraction need not be honored, as no assertion has been made. **Brainiac4** wrote > [@](#): > > Nonetheless, do you really think the only motivation for this is shining and honorable, and that the strategists are not using this to their advantage? It’s a dishonorable tactic in an already crappy election season. and > [@](#): > > My point was not that their actions were partisan; it was that their actions are not purely directed at purging phony voters. and > [@](#): > > I am objecting to a concerted effort on the part of the Republican Party in Ohio to lower turnout, using voter challenges at the polls. and there’s probably others, if I’d read them all. Friend **Brainiac4** is crystal-clear in his assertion that this is not being done for noble reasons, that rather it’s an under-handed ploy to undermine the democratic process. **Brainiac4** insists that the true motiving factors are key. I don’t think a request for a cite is out of order. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-set-to-challenge-ohio-voters/272557/86 "2004-11-02T22:29:51Z")
> [@Bill H.](#): > > I don’t hear anyone complaining that the extra voters that Democrats rounded up will make the polls take longer. But that’s just as nonsensical as whining that Republicans are delaying voters by eliminating fraud. The two are not equivalent. Persuading more voters to show up is legitimate. Issuing challenges which do not meet the standard of Ohio law ( **personal knowledge** indicating that a would-be voter is not legally entitled to vote) is not. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-set-to-challenge-ohio-voters/272557/87 "2004-11-02T22:34:20Z")
[Some background on the two judges who ruled to allow the Republican challengers at the polls today:](http://www.liquidlist.com/archives/2004/11/politics_who_ar_1.html) > [@](#): > > **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) If Bush gets re-elected (not that I think he will, based on the exit poll numbers so far), wanna bet at least one of these guys will get a Supreme Court nomination? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Brainiac4](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brainiac4/32/3534_2.png) [@Brainiac4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brainiac4)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-set-to-challenge-ohio-voters/272557/88 "2004-11-02T22:43:58Z")
> [@Bill H.](#): > > Cite, please that the intent of the Challengers was anything but what it’s been claimed. Or retraction, please. Which part of “may not” and “may” seems like I am making a claim of fact? > [@Bill H.](#): > > You’re whining that segments of the population may be disenfranchised because of delays caused by the challengers. You’ve said it many times above; I’m happy to quote you, if you’ve forgotten. I haven’t forgotten in the slightest. Apart from the use of the word “whining” to describe my posts, your description of the situation is nearly identical to mine. > [@Bill H.](#): > > And again: this sort of whining is the near equivalent of whining that the polls will take longer this year because of all the extra voters that Democrats drug in. Both arguments are equally silly. I note that you describe the two as “near equivalent.” I am happy that you realize they’re not the same. One argument is indeed silly, and is not being advanced. The other is not silly. > [@Bill H.](#): > > If **you** cannot see the difference, I encourage you to take in another showing of F911 and let those liberal fantasies take you away to your happy place once more. Apart from the clever rhetorical device of reflecting back my own quip at me, did you have a point here? What am I supposed to recognize the difference between? The real concern about vote suppression and your ridiculous parallel? Yep, I can recognize the difference between them. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-set-to-challenge-ohio-voters/272557/89 "2004-11-02T22:45:24Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > If Bush gets re-elected (not that I think he will, based on the exit poll numbers so far) Or if you put stock in Sunday’s Redskins game. Since 1936, when the 'Skins lost the last game prior to the election, the incumbent lost the election. And this should be the largest turnout since 1960, when a Democrat from Massachusetts beat a Republican from Texas. ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_H](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a5b964/32.png) [@Bill\_H](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_H)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-set-to-challenge-ohio-voters/272557/90 "2004-11-02T23:09:27Z")
**Steve MB** wrote > [@](#): > > The two are not equivalent. Persuading more voters to show up is legitimate. Issuing challenges which do not meet the standard of Ohio law (personal knowledge indicating that a would-be voter is not legally entitled to vote) is not. I thought I was pretty clear, but in case I wasn’t: the thing that I propose is equivalent is that both practices (adding voters to the roles, and weeding out fraudulent ones) slow down the process. And as others have pointed out, when things are slow, some voters will not vote. My point then is that people are unhappy when one legitimate process slows down the polls, but would find it absurd to hear whining when the other does. Also, your point about legitimacy is false. As you may know, legitimacy in legal matters is decided by courts, and the courts have ruled (for now at least) that this is a legitimate action. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-set-to-challenge-ohio-voters/272557/91 "2004-11-02T23:12:32Z")
> [@Bill H.](#): > > Friend **Brainiac4** is crystal-clear in his assertion that this is not being done for noble reasons, that rather it’s an under-handed ploy to undermine the democratic process. **Brainiac4** insists that the true motiving factors are key. I don’t think a request for a cite is out of order. Your request, made in post #77, referenced the following, and nothing else: > [@Brainiac4](#): > > The problem here is that the Republicans may not be doing a noble thing with a fortunate byproduct; they may be doing an ignoble thing with a cloak of nobility. Eliminating fraud in voting is indeed noble; disenfranchising people is not. If you want to bring his other statements and ask for cites and/or retractions, that’s your prerogative. I don’t feel it’s very honest to imply that your challenge to **Brainiac4** was also challenging those other statements. I’m not really a line judge, BTW, self-appointed or otherwise. But I still stand behind my argument in post #78. ---
**Author:** ![kittenblue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ba8739/32.png) [@kittenblue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kittenblue)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-set-to-challenge-ohio-voters/272557/92 "2004-11-02T23:35:12Z")
As an undecided voter in Ohio, I made a decision today that if I was challenged at the polls I would vote for the other party’s candidate. There weren’t any challengers. I had to finally make a decison. And then I had to go to work with a woman who as never voted because, as she says,.“I’m very religious and I believe the world is going to end soon and because of that there is really no point in voting for anyone because it won’t matter at all in the end.” She seemed really surprised that the boss and I (all of us are those “single women” voters you’ve heard so much about) had both voted. ---
**Author:** ![Brainiac4](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brainiac4/32/3534_2.png) [@Brainiac4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brainiac4)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-set-to-challenge-ohio-voters/272557/93 "2004-11-02T23:57:03Z")
> [@Bill H.](#): > > Friend **Brainiac4** is crystal-clear in his assertion that this is not being done for noble reasons, that rather it’s an under-handed ploy to undermine the democratic process. **Brainiac4** insists that the true motiving factors are key. I don’t think a request for a cite is out of order. I suspect we are not friends. My most recent statement on the issue is the one you asked for a cite on; it requires none. As for my previous statements, I’ll qualify them in the same way – they represent my concerns, rather than statements of fact. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-set-to-challenge-ohio-voters/272557/94 "2004-11-02T23:57:49Z")
> [@Lute Skywatcher](#): > > And this should be the largest turnout since 1960, when a Democrat from Massachusetts beat a Republican from Texas. Would you mind clarifying that for me? I was under the impression that Richard Nixon was from California. Perhaps you’re referencing a different 1960 contest than I’m presuming you’re referencing. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2004, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-set-to-challenge-ohio-voters/272557/95 "2004-11-03T00:02:59Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Would you mind clarifying that for me? I was under the impression that Richard Nixon was from California. Perhaps you’re referencing a different 1960 contest than I’m presuming you’re referencing. :smack: That’s what I get for being quick. I meant Kennedy followed Eisenhower. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2004, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-set-to-challenge-ohio-voters/272557/96 "2004-11-03T00:06:35Z")
> [@Lute Skywatcher](#): > > :smack: > That’s what I get for being quick. I meant Kennedy followed Eisenhower. Though born in Texas, Eisenhower was far more a Kansan (raised in Abilene) than a Texan. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2004, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-set-to-challenge-ohio-voters/272557/97 "2004-11-03T00:11:31Z")
> [@This Year's Model](#): > > Though born in Texas, Eisenhower was far more a Kansan (raised in Abilene) than a Texan. And Bush wasn’t born a Texan. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2004, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-set-to-challenge-ohio-voters/272557/98 "2004-11-03T00:15:41Z")
> [@Lute Skywatcher](#): > > And Bush wasn’t born a Texan. 🙂 Aha! Good point. I’ll stop nitpicking now. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2004, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-set-to-challenge-ohio-voters/272557/99 "2004-11-03T00:27:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I agree with your first point. I don’t follow the second. If the bogus list of felons had been used, then my hypothetical simply doesn’y apply – unless you’re suggesting that, by using the list only black felons would have been purged, and Hispanic felons - mostly Cubans - would still have voted, and they would have favored the right wing. > > If that’s the inference, I’m afraid I don’t follow the last leap in the chain. I contend that felons, even Cuban, will break for the left in higher proportion that for the right. Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying, and I think you’ve got it backwards. Only if the list is _not_ used, and all felons are allowed to vote, will the results potentially skew Democratic. If the list _is_ used (and the Republicans are still trying to use a version of it – see below), the black and “other” felons would be purged in extraordinarily disproportionate numbers than hispanic felons. Hispanics in Florida are overwhelmingly Republican. I contend that they don’t change party affiliation just because they’re incarcerated (at least not to large degrees). Here’s [a recent article](http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041102/NEWS/411020446) showing that Republicans are still trying to use a list of felons in Florida that _still_ has hispanics underrepresented (_“Fletcher said that the problem that excluded Hispanic felons from the state’s original list was never corrected for the list that will be used by Republican poll watchers.”_). And that is precisely because Republicans in Florida know full well that the hispanic population skews to their party – felon or not, otherwise, there’d be no reason whatsoever for them to try to leave them off the list. If the list of 14,000 included a proportionate number of hispanics and still had a 2/3 - 1/3 split, Democrat - Republican, you might have a point. But it doesn’t, so you don’t. > [@](#): > > [“Why would they use a list that is determined to have errors?” asked Pinellas supervisor Deborah Clark. “If their real objective is to keep ineligible voters from casting ballots, why didn’t they give the list to supervisor of elections right away? No one from the Republican Party has contacted me.”](http://www.sptimes.com/2004/10/29/State/GOP__Florida_felons_a.shtml) ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2004, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-set-to-challenge-ohio-voters/272557/100 "2004-11-03T00:48:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’d say the one party in your hypo is utterly unqualified to take ANY political office. They have had years to study the existing laws. They knew the law about two forms of ID existed, or should have known. And they did nothing. > > Meanwhile, the other party studied the law, and made decisions based on the law. Complaining about this is like complaining that the Electoral College gave the presidency to the popular vote loser. Yes, that is what the law says, even though the will of the majority of people is not given effect. Don’t like it? Change the law. Except that the crucial factor you’re ignoring here is that the law hadn’t been enforced for years… the electoral college is how we elect a president, both in law and in practice. But suppose that at some point in the mid 1800’s there had been a general agreement that the electoral college was stupid, and elections would be direct popular vote… and the electoral college laws were all left there, archaically, but people forgot about them. Then some conniving person, 150 years and 40 elections later, suddenly said, “hey, I lost the popular vote, but look what law I found on the books! I win!” Granted, it would be awfully stupid to leave electoral college laws on the books but stop using them, but it seems to me that the example I gave is more like the 90-bond paper example from Ohio of something that is technically on the books but has not been enforced for years. (And, I think I recall you condemning the 90-bond-paper issue… or am I confusing you with someone else?) I’m not sure if there’s a legal term or precedent for this, but is your support for the rule of law (which is certainly a good principle in general) so strong that you think any law that is found moldering away, and has not been enforced for 100 years, should be enforced the moment it’s discovered? And examples like the 90-bond paper are even worse, because that’s not a case of “oops, I found this old law we’d all forgotten about… but I respect the rule of law, and I find myself conscious-bound to enforce it”. Rather, it’s “hey, I found this old law we’d all forgotten about, and I believe that enforcing it, or enforcing it selectively, will benefit me.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-set-to-challenge-ohio-voters/272557.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-set-to-challenge-ohio-voters/272557.md?page=6)