Friday, August 03, 2012

That "Right to Vote" Thing? Not in Obozo's World!

Well, well.

...On July 17th, the Obama for America Campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and the Ohio Democratic Party filed suit in OH to strike down part of that state's law governing voting by members of the military. Their suit said that part of the law is "arbitrary" with "no discernible rational basis."

What maroons this guy and his Party really are.


Anonymous said...

Link doesn't work.

I imagine this is your "source".

I don't know if it is hilarious or frightening how easily people are manipulated in this country. Like partisan lemmings falling off the cliff because of this "truth", they fail to actually question the legitimacy of this story.

Of course, in the right blogosphere, this "story" is going viral.

Don't worry, you're not alone, Dad29, the left have their own robots, too.

There is no specific background information as to why (D)'s are challenging this law, just a headline and conclusion to cater to their shills.

That's really using one's brain, eh?

There used to be a SINGLE uniform deadline of the Monday before Election Day for in-person early voting.

Then the Republicans changed that so that voters using the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voter Act (“UOCAVA”) could vote early in-person at a board of elections office up through the Monday before Election Day, while non-UOCAVA/Ohio resident voters can vote early in-person at a board of elections office (or designated alternate site) only up until 6 p.m. on the Friday before Election Day.

The lawsuit is about changing things back the way they were so EVERYONE in Ohio gets to vote early in person up until Monday before election day. It is NOT taking anything away from the military--it will still be able to have those three extra days!

Dad29 said...

The lawsuit is about changing things back the way they were

Wrong. The lawsuit is about changing things back the way they were to DISENFRANCHISE some members of the military.

Or can't you comprehend your own sentence?

"Back to the way..." means that NOBODY gets to early/in-person vote after Friday.

Obviously, it's disenfranchisement that Obozo & Co. seek.

Anonymous said...

"The things that they were" or "Back to the way" means SINGLE DEADLINE FOR ALL VOTERS.

There had been one deadline for all voters in Ohio, military and non-military.

(R)'s then changed the law. Two deadlines were enacted for voting, one earlier for non-military, one later for military (i.e. the three extra days).

(D)'s contested the law. They want the three extra days for the non-military as well. The military still keeps the three extra days.

From the link..."In other words, at one time both the military and non-military could vote up until the Monday before the election. After the enactment of Bill #194 only the military were able to vote up until Monday. Everyone else were limited to voting up until the Friday prior to that Monday."

From the complaint...

“Now, as a result of HB 224 and SB 295, most Ohio voters will not be permitted to vote in the three days prior to Election Day for no apparent reason. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from implementing or enforcing the HB 224 and SB 295 changes to Ohio Rev. Code§ 3509.03, thereby restoring in-person absentee voting on the three days immediately preceding Election Day for ALL Ohio voters.”

ALL meaning military and non-military.

"Opposite to what the geniuses at Breitbart report, the complaint will not remove early voting rights for the military, it will allow others to vote until the Monday before the election."

You're wrong, Dad29. Just admit it and move on.

Jim said...


Thanks for doing the heavy lifting on this one. Excellent work!

Anonymous said...

The link still doesn't work...and Dad29 is silent.

Dad29 said...

Some of us have a life...

Try this version:

Anonymous said...

All you did Dad29 was link to an article that rinsed, lathered, and repeated INCORRECTLY the purpose of the lawsuit, just like Brietbart.

Next time, YOU do the heavy lifting in countering my argument, which amounts to a link that does little to specifically address my points.

Again, the lawsuit is tailored to KEEP the extra three days for members of the armed forcs. The (D)'s only seek to throw out what they deem is an unconstitutional aspect of a law passed by (R)'s.

Before the changes, local boards of election had the discretion to set their own early, in-person voting hours on the days before the election. People were allowed up until Monday before the Tuesday election to vote in person. Weekend voting varied among the state’s 88 counties.

Imagine that...LOCAL CONTROL until the (R)'s intervened.

With the changes, most Ohioans now have until the Friday evening before the Tuesday election to cast a ballot in person. But military voters can continue to vote in person until Monday.

Democrats contend one of the legislative changes to the in-person, early-voting deadlines resulted in “arbitrary and inequitable” treatment of similarly situated voters. Recall there were 3 separate bills passed by the (R)'s. The lawsuit ONLY focuses on "thereby restoring in-person absentee voting on the three days immediately preceding Election Day for ALL Ohio voters."

So, big boy, why did the (R)'s change in the first place to REMOVE time for MOST CITIZENS to vote?

Anonymous said...

Wow, Dad's inability to formulate a response speaks volumes. No doubt he already regrets this vapid post.