The Truth will prevail, But only if we Demand it from Congress!
9-11 Inside Job and Neocons Hacked 2004
Ohio's Election Stolen Again? State May Face 600K Voter Purge in
Coming Weeks
By , Advancement Project and Project Vote
Posted on August 13, 2008, Printed on August 16, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/94977/
Editor's note: In 2004, election integrity activists challenged the
results of Ohio's presidential election before the Ohio Supreme
Court, and convinced Rep. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones (D-OH) and Sen.
Barbara Boxer (D-CA) to challenge the state's Electoral College vote
before a joint session of Congress. The reaction by Ohio's then
Republican-controlled Legislature was to enact a series of election
reforms that punished likely Democratic voters. Some of the laws
adopted were later thrown out in court, such as penalizing voter
registration drives. But others, including a technical process to
require certain voters to prove their registrations are valid on
Election Day -- or lose their right to vote, remain in effect. Two
of the nation's top voting rights groups, Advancement Project and
Project Vote, this week reported 600,000 Ohio voters could be
effected. This article is a combination of the releases both groups
issued this week. George W. Bush beat John Kerry by nearly 119,000
votes in Ohio in 2004. -- Steven Rosenfeld, AlterNet Democracy and
Elections editor.
Columbus, Ohio August 13, 2008 -- Nearly 600,000 eligible Ohio
voters may be dropped from the voter rolls if Secretary of State
Jennifer Brunner doesn't act to protect these voters, according to
findings based on publicly available information discovered by
Advancement Project and Project Vote.
These voters -- disproportionately voters of color and young voters
-- are subject to being removed from Ohio's voter registration rolls
without notice or a hearing because of the state's vague regulations
on vote caging, a process that enables representatives of one
political party to challenge the voter registration credentials of
voters at polling places on Election Day.
The Ohio counties with largest numbers of returned notices prior to
March 2008 Presidential Primary are Cuyahoga, Franklin, Hamilton,
Lucas and Summit, where Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati and Toledo
are located.
The mechanism of caging or challenging voters dates back to
legislation passed soon after the 2004 presidential election.
In 2005, Ohio's General Assembly introduced legislation, House Bill
3 (H.B.3) that overhauled Ohio's election system. H.B. 3, in part,
requires voter information mailings and amends Ohio's challenge
statute(s). In particular, it requires that 88 county boards of
election mail all Ohio registered voters a non-forwardable notice 60
days before the election. Each board must compile into a list any
notices that are returned as undeliverable. These lists, in turn,
are available as public records to any individual or group seeking
to use the list as a "caging list" to challenge voters.
The amended challenge law no longer requires the county boards to
provide Ohio voters with notice that they are being removed from the
voting rolls or a hearing for them to defend themselves of a
challenge. Rather, the Ohio law permits the boards to review their
own records and make a determination to the validity of the
challenge.
This law was effective beginning 2006 and covers all primary,
general, and special elections from 2006 through the November 2008
General Election. Advancement Project finds it extremely
interesting, that this law "sunsets" effective January 1, 2009.
"A single returned piece of mail is not a reliable basis for
challenging the right to vote," said Donita Judge, Ohio staff
attorney, Advancement Project. "Mail may be returned for many
reasons, including errors in the database from which the mailing is
derived, errors in the mailing labels, failure to include an
apartment number or poor matching criteria."
Advancement Project and Project Vote would like to see the Ohio
Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner, issue a directive prohibiting
Ohio electors from challenging Ohio voters whose name appear on any
returned mailings and/or any past, current or future caging list.
This is the best remedy to ensure that all Ohio voters are treated
in a uniform manner during the November 2008 election because it
permits the county boards to send out information to Ohio voters and
at the same time ensures that all voters are permitted to vote
without the threat of being placed on a list that is subject to
challenge for no other reason than a returned mailing.
"Partisan, challengers who have obtained a list of returned letters
shouldn't be allowed to strip Ohio voters of their right to update
their addresses" said Teresa James, attorney with Project Vote. The
lack of notice to challenged voters under Ohio's 2006 challenge law
allows this interference to take place quietly and behind closed
doors. This violates the principles our nation was founded on. It is
imperative that Secretary Brunner establish guidelines so that
partisan challengers will not be permitted to lodge unfounded
challenges that clog the election process, burden poll workers and
disenfranchise eligible voters."
Ohio's current law is internally inconsistent. For instance, Ohio
law permits voters who move from one precinct to another to change
their address from 28-days prior to the election, up to and
including Election Day. Yet, if a voter is challenged and removed
from the rolls within 20 days of the Election and their registration
is canceled, without notice, this cancels the effectiveness of a
voter changing their address since there is no longer a registration
on file. It also violates Ohio law and equal protection of the laws
because this voter is not provided the same meaningful opportunity
to update a valid registration up to and including Election Day as
other Ohio voters.
The new election law also unfairly impacts black and Latino
Americans and other voters of color. Advancement Project anticipates
that significant number of voters of color will be included on the
county generated caging lists because census data indicates that
they move more frequently than whites. Furthermore, in light of the
fact that college students change residences frequently, it is
anticipated that large numbers of young voters will be included on
the lists as well.
"Voter suppression and intimidation is driven by a desire to
maintain the status quo, concluded Judge." "These acts are carried
out in an effort to deprive certain Americans, especially those most
marginalized, of a voice in our democracy. Election Day is the great
equalizer -- it is the one day where if all was right in our
democracy, it would not matter if a person is rich, poor, black,
white, educated or not, we all would have the same amount of power."
Advancement Project partners with community organizations, bringing
them the tools of legal advocacy and strategic communications to
dismantle structural exclusion.
© 2008 Advancement Project and Project Vote All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/94977/
