Home General U.S. Supreme Court Wants Quick Response in Ohio Vote-Counting Case
formats

U.S. Supreme Court Wants Quick Response in Ohio Vote-Counting Case

Published on April 11, 2011, by in General.

On April 9, the Hamilton County, Ohio Board of Elections asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the order of the 6th circuit in the lawsuit over whether certain provisional ballots should be counted, in a November 2010 partisan local judicial race. The Court has asked for a response, to be submitted by Friday, April 15, 4 p.m. The case is Hamilton County Board of Elections v Hunter, 10A989. The Hamilton County Elections Board brief is 17 pages of text, plus 60 pages in which the lower court opinions are attached. It may not load if your computer uses Firefox, but it should load if it uses Explorer.

The brief points out that the 6th circuit decision, and also the U.S. District Court decision (both of which said that the disputed ballots should be counted) both cite Bush v Gore. The brief also points out that election law professor Ned Foley wrote recently that this case is the most significant instance so far in which a lower court has depended on Bush v Gore. Bush v Gore is the famous U.S. Supreme Court decision released on the evening of December 12, 2000, which stopped the Florida presidential recount. Bush v Gore says, “Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the state may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over that of another.”

The lower courts in the Hamilton County case depended on that language, and ruled that because the county counted some provisional votes in which the voter was not at fault, therefore it must count all the provisional ballots at which the voter was not at fault. The U.S. Supreme Court, in over ten years since Bush v Gore was decided, has never again mentioned that decision. Thanks to Thomas Jones for pointing out this news, and thanks to Scotusblog for the link to the Hamilton County brief.

3 Responses

  1. Demo Rep

    How come the EQUAL Protection Clause is SOOOOOO difficult to understand — esp. by party hack MORON judges ???

    INTENTIONAL or UN-intentional violations.

    Some MORON poll workers obviously screwed up big time.

    How about a NEW election regarding the voters who got their CONSTITUTIONAL rights violated by the MORON poll workers ??? — paid for the MORON poll workers involved — and the MORON higher ups who appointed such poll workers.

    How many zillion YES/NO flow chart steps are now required to hold an election in the U.S.A. — due to the usual suspects — i.e. more things than ever to screw up — especially UN-intentionally — such as ALL of the provisional voting stuff — having way too many polling places in the same building, etc. etc. ???

    One more reason to have ONLY mail ballots.

    See Oregon which continues to survive with only mail ballots.

  2. Demo Rep

    typo — paid for BY the MORON poll workers involved, etc.

  3. Demo Rep

    Apr 12, 1861 — start of the shooting in the horrific 1861-1865 Civil War.

    Remember the Dead/Injured on both sides and massive property destruction.

    Major results – 13th, 14th (with the EQUAL protection clause) and 15th Amdts.

    Did the Supremes note today and their infamous 1857 Dred Scott opinion ??? — which directly caused the 1860-1861 stuff to happen.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>