NationStates Jolt Archive

If you haven't been following this story, here it goes.

A little while back, the Ohio branch of the GOP brought a suit against Ohio's Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner, who is a democrat. The suit claimed that there were several discrepancies between the registered voting lists and the state's social security lists, and alleged that this might be a result of either sloppy accounting, or active voter fraud. Brunner claimed that any anomalies were likely clerical errors, well within the normal range of errors for any state.

The GOP sought to make sure that all newly registered voters were matched, by hand, to the Social security lists, and any registered voters that did not match, or were not matched in time, were disqualified. Some claimed that this was a move by the GOP to disenfranchise newly registered voters in battleground state Ohio, since McCain must win Ohio to take the presidency, and due to Obama's hugely successful registration drive, a majority of the newly registered Ohio voters would be Democrats.

The suit went all the way up to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals which sided with the GOP and ordered Brunner to ensure that all newly registered voters matched up with the social security lists by matching each one. Brunner then appealed to the US Supreme Court in an emergency appeal. Today the Supreme Court struck down the 6th Circuit's ruling (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/us_elections_2008/7676922.stm), stating that as a private organization, the state GOP lacked standing to bring the claim, and dismissed the suit.

It's worth noting that the Supreme Court did not address the merits of the case. A dismissal for lack of standing essentially means that the GOP did not have the legal right to sue the State Secretary on this matter, regardless of who was right or wrong.

This is a move that almost certainly will be of more benefit to Obama than McCain, as if the ruling had held, may have resulted in several thousand registrations being tossed out.

oh GOOD.

leaving out the blatant politicalness of the whole thing, i was at a loss as to how the ohio sec of state was supposed to get it done by today.

if the republican party can find actual cases of voter fraud, then they should go after those who cast illegal votes. but this "ohmygod acorn registered mickey mouse to vote" bullshit is nothing but an effort to deny people their right to vote.

A Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2202428/) article on the subject.

The GOP in the land of Diebold had the temerity to call voting practices into question? Amusing.

This is the second time they've done that (well, it's probably the umpteenth time they've done that, but the second time I've noticed). The "under god" in the pledge was dismissed because the guy didn't have standing to make the suit. This is kind of confusing to me-is it a way to puss out of a ruling, like "This case could have been made better but if we rule on this BS it'll be final so we're going to punt" because shouldn't eligability really be something settled way way way before getting to the Supreme Court, or is it one of those crazy crazy complicated things that if you try and explain to me I might start kicking you in the shins?

is it a way to puss out of a ruling, like "This case could have been made better but if we rule on this BS it'll be final so we're going to punt" because shouldn't eligability really be something settled way way way before getting to the Supreme Court, or is it one of those crazy crazy complicated things that if you try and explain to me I might start kicking you in the shins?

Little bit of both? I'm not so fond of SCOTUS to presume that they'd NEVER EVER do such a thing as to dismiss for standing just because they don't like an issue.

Well, ok, I don't think they'd ever BLATANTLY just make it up, but I'm willing to bet that, on some contentious issues, where the issue of standing is on the line one way or the other, it might help....tip it.

However, standing can be a very complicated matter, and, keep in mind, if we go with the argument of "shouldn't this have been settled already before it got to the Supreme Court?" then what would the supreme court ever do? Also keep in mind that this got to SCOTUS in a matter of weeks. Most cases take 5, 6, 10 years before they get a ruling from SCOTUS

I'll hold his arms.

Little bit of both? I'm not so fond of SCOTUS to presume that they'd NEVER EVER do such a thing as to dismiss for standing just because they don't like an issue.

Well, ok, I don't think they'd ever BLATANTLY just make it up, but I'm willing to bet that, on some contentious issues, where the issue of standing is on the line one way or the other, it might help....tip it.

However, standing can be a very complicated matter, and, keep in mind, if we go with the argument of "shouldn't this have been settled already before it got to the Supreme Court?" then what would the supreme court ever do? Also keep in mind that this got to SCOTUS in a matter of weeks. Most cases take 5, 6, 10 years before they get a ruling from SCOTUS

Oh, nonsense. I have this one example of a case where this rich kid from New England was pretending to be a hick from Texas and he was suing this fat guy from Tennessee because they didn't like each other or something. They got to the Supreme Court in a few days.

I think the fake hick won.

You lose.

the republican party of new mexico is in a tizzy because they have decided that they have found 28 fraudulent votes in a recent primary.

i dont think, however, that they have looked to see if these fraudulent voters actually exist legitimately but had errors on their voter registration papers or if it is actual vote fraud.

Little bit of both? I'm not so fond of SCOTUS to presume that they'd NEVER EVER do such a thing as to dismiss for standing just because they don't like an issue.

Well, ok, I don't think they'd ever BLATANTLY just make it up, but I'm willing to bet that, on some contentious issues, where the issue of standing is on the line one way or the other, it might help....tip it.

However, standing can be a very complicated matter, and, keep in mind, if we go with the argument of "shouldn't this have been settled already before it got to the Supreme Court?" then what would the supreme court ever do? Also keep in mind that this got to SCOTUS in a matter of weeks. Most cases take 5, 6, 10 years before they get a ruling from SCOTUS

I understand the whole things settled before getting to the Supreme Court thing, I know what they're for, but elegibility seems a little more basic, like if I went and filed to say, sue McDonalds because they were a dick to the guy ahead of me in line there might be someone there to go, "Yeah, no-you can't do that" before things even started rolling.

And now that I think about it (not that I'm in favor of this lawsuit or think it's anything other than an attempt at voter suppression) if a major stake holder in the coming election doesn't have standing who the hell does?

However, standing can be a very complicated matter, and, keep in mind, if we go with the argument of "shouldn't this have been settled already before it got to the Supreme Court?" then what would the supreme court ever do?

I think we expect the Supreme Court should rule on the law, but it seems a legal technicality like "this group can't legally sue this other group" should be able to be resolved without the Supreme Court's intervention. To the uneducated like myself, it seems like something that the lower courts ought to be able to recognize on their own.

And now that I think about it (not that I'm in favor of this lawsuit or think it's anything other than an attempt at voter suppression) if a major stake holder in the coming election doesn't have standing who the hell does?

"the GOP" is not a stakeholder in the election. I know that makes the common sense part of your brain hurt, but in reality it's true. "the GOP" is not a voter, nor is it running for office. It's simply a private political organization.

Now, you might argue, it's made up of voters, and an organization can sue on behalf of its members, the standing rules for such a thing are complicated, and it's unclear if even "a voter" would have standing in this claim.

If you haven't been following this story, here it goes.

A little while back, the Ohio branch of the GOP brought a suit against Ohio's Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner, who is a democrat. The suit claimed that there were several discrepancies between the registered voting lists and the state's social security lists, and alleged that this might be a result of either sloppy accounting, or active voter fraud. Brunner claimed that any anomalies were likely clerical errors, well within the normal range of errors for any state.

The GOP sought to make sure that all newly registered voters were matched, by hand, to the Social security lists, and any registered voters that did not match, or were not matched in time, were disqualified. Some claimed that this was a move by the GOP to disenfranchise newly registered voters in battleground state Ohio, since McCain must win Ohio to take the presidency, and due to Obama's hugely successful registration drive, a majority of the newly registered Ohio voters would be Democrats.

The suit went all the way up to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals which sided with the GOP and ordered Brunner to ensure that all newly registered voters matched up with the social security lists by matching each one. Brunner then appealed to the US Supreme Court in an emergency appeal. Today the Supreme Court struck down the 6th Circuit's ruling (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/us_elections_2008/7676922.stm), stating that as a private organization, the state GOP lacked standing to bring the claim, and dismissed the suit.

It's worth noting that the Supreme Court did not address the merits of the case. A dismissal for lack of standing essentially means that the GOP did not have the legal right to sue the State Secretary on this matter, regardless of who was right or wrong.

This is a move that almost certainly will be of more benefit to Obama than McCain, as if the ruling had held, may have resulted in several thousand registrations being tossed out.

Goddamn Democrats trying to steal the election with the help of the Republican-dominated Supreme Court. It's a vast conspiracy, it is. :mad:

I think we expect the Supreme Court should rule on the law, but it seems a legal technicality like "this group can't legally sue this other group" should be able to be resolved without the Supreme Court's intervention. To the uneducated like myself, it seems like something that the lower courts ought to be able to recognize on their own.

you would think so, but a lot of that depends on opinion. For example, in the "under god" case, the issue of standing was based on whether the father, who sued on behalf of his daughter, had sufficient custody of the child to sue on her behalf. The lower courts thought he did. the Supreme Court disagreed. A lot of times standing is very clear and distinct, other times, not so much. I was talking about this in my office, a room FULL of lawyers, and the question of "does a voter have standing to challenge the voter registration" and we couldn't agree.

It's a more complicated issue at times than you might think.

I think we expect the Supreme Court should rule on the law, but it seems a legal technicality like "this group can't legally sue this other group" should be able to be resolved without the Supreme Court's intervention. To the uneducated like myself, it seems like something that the lower courts ought to be able to recognize on their own.

It often seems that lower courts should have recognized something as obvious after the Supreme Court clarifies the issue.

But standing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)) is a legitimate concern with constitutional ramifications and is very frickin' complicated. I haven't read the relevant opinions in this case, but they should make interesting reading -- if only to me.

"the GOP" is not a stakeholder in the election. I know that makes the common sense part of your brain hurt, but in reality it's true. "the GOP" is not a voter, nor is it running for office. It's simply a private political organization.

Now, you might argue, it's made up of voters, and an organization can sue on behalf of its members, the standing rules for such a thing are complicated, and it's unclear if even "a voter" would have standing in this claim.

One of their own is running in the election, though, doesn't that make them a stake holder? Or should I just start smashing things right now? I mean, yeah, they're a private political organization, but one that has a candidate in the running. It's not like its the Cannot Think of A Name of a Party party from California got a bug up its ass to sue in Ohio where we aren't even running for Water Treatment District, the GOP has several candidates on the ballot. Are you (or rather the Supreme Court) suggesting that no private citizen or organization can sue to enforce voter registration laws? Doesn't that unduly remove us from the process and the boards from accountability?

I think we expect the Supreme Court should rule on the law, but it seems a legal technicality like "this group can't legally sue this other group" should be able to be resolved without the Supreme Court's intervention. To the uneducated like myself, it seems like something that the lower courts ought to be able to recognize on their own.

It can be a tricky question, and is one of the things the Supreme Court is there for. What entities can and cannot sue is not a matter for the lower courts to make clear, the higher courts or the legislative branch is more suitable for that task.

I was talking about this in my office, a room FULL of lawyers, and the question of "does a voter have standing to challenge the voter registration" and we couldn't agree.

Well you know what they say: "If you can get a room full of lawyers to agree on a complicated question, they're all on the same payroll."

It often seems that lower courts should have recognized something as obvious after the Supreme Court clarifies the issue.

But standing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)) is a legitimate concern with constitutional ramifications and is very frickin' complicated. I haven't read the relevant opinions in this case, but they should make interesting reading -- if only to me.

Read it without any clothes on. Then we're all interested.

One of their own is running in the election, though, doesn't that make them a stake holder?

So what? I'm a member of Amnesty International. Doesn't mean that if suddenly I throw my hat into the ring, AI suddenly has the right to sue on my behalf in this matter.



Are you (or rather the Supreme Court) suggesting that no private citizen or organization can sue to enforce voter registration laws? Doesn't that unduly remove us from the process and the boards from accountability?

It's...ugh, it's more complicated than that. OK, here's the easy way of putting it. You can only sue on a matter that effects you, directly. You can't just sue because you don't like what someone is doing, it has to impact you. Now if I'm a legally registered voter, the question becomes, how does someone improperly registered effect me? You MIGHT make the argument that people vote who couldn't, and might result in someone being elected who would not have been had it been had the rules been followed, thus changing the leadership of the country, and effecting me, but legally that's a stretch.

Likewise just because "one of their own" is running doesn't give the GOP standing for the same reason. My off the top guess as to who would ACTUALLY have standing, the ones who would most directly able to claim that improper registration affects them personally would be....Barack Obama and John McCain

For those that are interested, here (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08A332.pdf) is the 2-page order of the Supreme Court.

Here (http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/Democracy/ohio.gop.brunner.10.14.08.banc.op.pdf) is the 50-page en banc order and opinion of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Here (http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/ohio_republican_party_v_secretary_brunner/) and here (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-blocks-ohio-voter-match-order/) are rather short explanations of what is going on.

The quick-and-dirty explanation is that the Republican Party of Ohio was seeking to enforce the Help America Vote Act of 2002 ("HAVA") which require states to attempt to "match" information provided by citizens who apply to register to vote with the motor vehicle and Social Security databases. The Supreme Court held that it was not likely that the plaintiffs could show they had a right under HAVA to enforce the law via a private suit.

So what? I'm a member of Amnesty International. Doesn't mean that if suddenly I throw my hat into the ring, AI suddenly has the right to sue on my behalf in this matter.
C'mon, dude, that's not the same and you know it. You wouldn't be running on behalf of Amnesty International and more importantly, you wouldn't be using Amnesty International's credentials to qualify yourself for the ballot in the first place. The very fact that the only reason Barrack Obama and John McCain get auto-access to the ballot is their association with their relative parties. Those parties have open spots on the ballot by the nature of their qualifications to run candidates. That's a stake that AI doesn't have.





It's...ugh, it's more complicated than that. OK, here's the easy way of putting it. You can only sue on a matter that effects you, directly. You can't just sue because you don't like what someone is doing, it has to impact you. Now if I'm a legally registered voter, the question becomes, how does someone improperly registered effect me? You MIGHT make the argument that people vote who couldn't, and might result in someone being elected who would not have been had it been had the rules been followed, thus changing the leadership of the country, and effecting me, but legally that's a stretch.

Likewise just because "one of their own" is running doesn't give the GOP standing for the same reason. My off the top guess as to who would ACTUALLY have standing, the ones who would most directly able to claim that improper registration affects them personally would be....Barack Obama and John McCain
That still seems to me to divorce the electorate from the ability to hold those who run our elections accountable. I mean, this is public office, not home coming queen.

For those that are interested, here (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08A332.pdf) is the 2-page order of the Supreme Court.

Here (http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/Democracy/ohio.gop.brunner.10.14.08.banc.op.pdf) is the 50-page en banc order and opinion of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Here (http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/ohio_republican_party_v_secretary_brunner/) and here (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-blocks-ohio-voter-match-order/) are rather short explanations of what is going on.

The quick-and-dirty explanation is that the Republican Party of Ohio was seeking to enforce the Help America Vote Act of 2002 ("HAVA") which require states to attempt to "match" information provided by citizens who apply to register to vote with the motor vehicle and Social Security databases. The Supreme Court held that it was not likely that the plaintiffs could show they had a right under HAVA to enforce the law via a private suit.

So wait, it wasn't that the wrong people sued, but rather suing might have been the wrong way to go about it?

So wait, it wasn't that the wrong people sued, but rather suing might have been the wrong way to go about it?
"Private" suit may have been the wrong way: perhaps the Justice Department has to be the plaintiff? My other guess would be that the actual candidates would have to be the plaintiffs (I haven't read the legal opinions, mind you).

C'mon, dude, that's not the same and you know it. You wouldn't be running on behalf of Amnesty International and more importantly, you wouldn't be using Amnesty International's credentials to qualify yourself for the ballot in the first place. The very fact that the only reason Barrack Obama and John McCain get auto-access to the ballot is their association with their relative parties. Those parties have open spots on the ballot by the nature of their qualifications to run candidates. That's a stake that AI doesn't have.

Technically McCain isn't running on BEHALF of the GOP. Anyone can run for president. The GOP, as a private organization, decided to endorse John McCain's run for office. Despite not receiving the enforcement of the GOP, all the other people like Guilliani, Romney, Huckabee, and the rest still could have run for office, it would have still absolutely been their legal right, they just would not have had the endorsement of the GOP.

From a legal perspective, McCain isn't running on behalf of the GOP, the GOP, a private organization, decided to endorse the candidacy of John McCain.


That still seems to me to divorce the electorate from the ability to hold those who run our elections accountable. I mean, this is public office, not home coming queen.

It's not the court's place to say what SHOULD be. It's not the court's place to say what's BETTER. it's the court's place to decide what IS. And they found, under HAVA, a private political party had not been granted standing under the law.

So wait, it wasn't that the wrong people sued, but rather suing might have been the wrong way to go about it?

With the BIG caveat that I've only given the matter a few minutes of surface review, that seems to be accurate. The Court seems to have concluded that HAVA contains neither an explicit or implied private right of action to enforce its provisions. (An implied private right of action is a cause of action not expressly included by a statute but one which a court has interpreted the statute to implicitly create. )

EDIT: Neo Art appears to have looked at this more closely than I, so his analysis is probably right. I'm just going by my quick perusal of the matter.

With the BIG caveat that I've only given the matter a few minutes of surface review, that seems to be accurate. The Court seems to have concluded that HAVA contains neither an explicit or implied private right of action to enforce its provisions. (An implied private right of action is a cause of action not expressly included by a statute but one which a court has interpreted the statute to implicitly create. )So: only the Justice Department could sue, not even John McCain personally?

So: only the Justice Department could sue, not even John McCain personally?

Well, there is really only one sentence and a couple of relevant citations in the Supreme Court's per curiam order:

Respondents, however, are not sufficiently likely to prevail on the question whether Congress has authorized the District Court to enforce Section 303 in an action brought by a private litigant to justify the issuance of a TRO. See Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U. S. 273, 283 (2002); Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U. S. 275, 286 (2001). We therefore grant the application for a stay and vacate the TRO.

From my quick research, it appears Gonzaga Univ. and Alexander both involve cases where the law in question did not give rise to a private cause of action.

How the provisions of HAVA are supposed to be enforced, I have no idea.

EDIT: For the truly curious to the point of self-injury, this site (http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/ohiorepublicanpartyv.brunner.php) has all the various briefs, orders, decisions, etc, in the case.

The issue here involves a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/1983.html), which authorizes civil rights lawsuits against state actors that violate federal rights. I took a whole class in law school on the complexities of these constitutional torts, but here are a couple of sources to help explain what section 1983 sets forth. link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1871),link (http://www.constitution.org/brief/forsythe_42-1983.htm), link (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3805/is_/ai_n8796023).

Well, they failed to get what they wanted, spent campaign money on this lawsuit, and personel as well. That favor Obama, so it's good.

Why shouldn't Mickey Mouse be allowed to vote? He's over 18. :p

Why shouldn't Mickey Mouse be allowed to vote? He's over 18. :p

He committed voter fraud, and is always involved in trouble. He's a rat!

He committed voter fraud, and is always involved in trouble. He's a rat!

You're right. He should be in Congress. :D

A Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2202428/) article on the subject.

Great article. Sad that this has to come from Slate, when it's a point that much bigger media voices should be making.

Getting people hyped up about voter fraud is similar to getting people hyped up about media bias. Scream the big lie loud enough and long enough, and your average underinformed non-confrontational citizen will just assume that, hey, what the hell, everything's crooked, so why bother to vote or read the paper?

Dont get too excited. They'll just install electronic voting machines and "lose" votes.

It's not the court's place to say what SHOULD be. It's not the court's place to say what's BETTER. it's the court's place to decide what IS. And they found, under HAVA, a private political party had not been granted standing under the law.

Therein lies the fundamental problem. Our own Supreme Court cannot even correct voter fraud because the complaintant is not the right one.

You're right. He should be in Congress. :D

he's qualified to run for President!

he was born in the USA and I believe he meets the minimum age requirement. :p

Vote for a real Rat.
Micky and Goofy for 2012.
they'll make Washingtion Honest.

If you haven't been following this story, here it goes.

A little while back, the Ohio branch of the GOP brought a suit against Ohio's Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner, who is a democrat. The suit claimed that there were several discrepancies between the registered voting lists and the state's social security lists, and alleged that this might be a result of either sloppy accounting, or active voter fraud. Brunner claimed that any anomalies were likely clerical errors, well within the normal range of errors for any state.

The GOP sought to make sure that all newly registered voters were matched, by hand, to the Social security lists, and any registered voters that did not match, or were not matched in time, were disqualified. Some claimed that this was a move by the GOP to disenfranchise newly registered voters in battleground state Ohio, since McCain must win Ohio to take the presidency, and due to Obama's hugely successful registration drive, a majority of the newly registered Ohio voters would be Democrats.

The suit went all the way up to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals which sided with the GOP and ordered Brunner to ensure that all newly registered voters matched up with the social security lists by matching each one. Brunner then appealed to the US Supreme Court in an emergency appeal. Today the Supreme Court struck down the 6th Circuit's ruling (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/us_elections_2008/7676922.stm), stating that as a private organization, the state GOP lacked standing to bring the claim, and dismissed the suit.

It's worth noting that the Supreme Court did not address the merits of the case. A dismissal for lack of standing essentially means that the GOP did not have the legal right to sue the State Secretary on this matter, regardless of who was right or wrong.

This is a move that almost certainly will be of more benefit to Obama than McCain, as if the ruling had held, may have resulted in several thousand registrations being tossed out.

Those damn activist judges! :D

Therein lies the fundamental problem. Our own Supreme Court cannot even correct voter fraud because the complaintant is not the right one.

To what voter fraud are you referring? Have you been drinking the Kool-Aid again?

To what voter fraud are you referring? Have you been drinking the Kool-Aid again?

If people are voting for that ******, its obviously voter fraud.