We will start in GQ, because I am looking for an answer instead of a debate, but I guess my title asks the question.
So, in Ohio, the law says the polls close at 7:30pm, but someone goes to court as says that the weather, ballot screw ups, long lines, whatever caused X, Y, or Z problems. This seems to happen in a lot of states in every election.
In almost all cases, no intentional fraud is accused. But when it goes to a federal judge, he comes up with a remedy like keeping the polls open two hours later.
How does a federal judge have any say whatsoever in an internal voting matter of a state when it doesn’t involve a matter covered under federal law (racial discrimination, etc.)?
What law gives this judge the right to fashion some sort of remedy as half-assed as this? Maybe the same problem happened state-wide and by keeping this one place open two more hours, this creates the only problem in the vote count?
Per this article, one judge in Ohio ordered the polls remain open late because of delays in setting up the voting equipment. IANAL, but my WAG would be that judges have the ability to rule in accordance with the public policy of the state. Presumably public policy is strongly in favor of allowing eligible voters to vote so if there is something beyond the control of the voters that prevents them from voting the judges may invoke public policy and require that polling stations remain open past regular hours.
I, too, would be surprised if a federal judge were involved in this sort of tomfoolery. Whenever I hear about these issues, it is always a state court involved.
I’m certainly willing to be corrected on the matter, though.
Back in 2004 (IIRC), local officials said (publicly) that the polls could stay open an extra 3 hours to accomodate those whose schedules made it difficult to vote during regular hours. This got shot down by the courts, Federal I think. Caused a HUGE stink, since almost all of those disenfranchised were black; this is how it wound up with the Feds, since civil rights were a claim. I’m operating on old memories here.
So could the court have said, “Yes, they can stay open?” Not sure if that’s been established. The voting hours are pretty strictly set out in State law, though I’m sure there are provisions for REALLY weird events, like earthquakes.
There were primary elections scheduled for the 11th, and they were postponed. But that was an act of the state legislature (Emergency Primary Rescheduling Act of 2001), not the courts.
Um, you don’t seriously think that the original postponement was the result of legislation that same day, do you? :dubious:
The “Emergency Primary Election Rescheduling Act of 2001” (Ch. 298 (S 5791)) was not passed until well after the attack. However, the elections on that day were not stopped by a judge, but rather by order of Gov. Pataki.
http://zanesvilletimesrecorder.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080305/NEWS03/803050340/1002/NEWS01 Identifies at least one case filed in federal court. I looked it up. Neither party made much of an effort to address the federal court’s jurisdiction. The Complaint alleges violations of the U.S. Constitution and 42 U.S.C. sections 1983 and 1971. The Court’s order does not address jurisdictional issues.
You said this. You said that their postponement was an act of the state legislature. It was not. They were postponed on the day of the election (9/11). The date to which they were postponed was set by statute, passed later. Understand?