GOP vote count strategery: Rules is rules
by digby
I certainly hope that the polling results in Ohio are correct and that President Obama has a nice cushion because if he doesn’t, and it comes down to that state, this is going to be a problem:
With just a few dozen hours left before polls open on Election Day, here is a candidate for the most important election-law story of the weekend — a story likely to cross over into the general political debate Sunday through Monday. This early copy from the Associated Press offered a hint:
COLUMBUS, Ohio — Voter advocates are criticizing an order by Ohio’s elections chief dealing with the casting of provisional ballots. Advocates are saying on Saturday that the order by Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted late Friday wrongly puts the burden of recording the form of ID used on a provisional ballot on voters, not pollworkers ….
Here’s what happened. On Thursday, voting-rights advocates filed an “emergency motion” with a federal trial judge seeking his reassurance that provisional ballots in Ohio will be judged by the standard he endorsed (and Ohio reportedly agreed to) in a recent consent decree. That standard, the plaintiffs say, is “that a provisional-ballot form that has incomplete or improperly completed information regarding the type of identification proffered by a voter should be counted pursuant” to Ohio law, which, they say, makes the poll worker responsible for taking down the information. Here’s a link to that motion.
Ohio has not yet responded to it with a filing in court — the state’s deadline is Monday. But it was a full day after this motion was filed that the secretary of state, at 6 p.m. on the Friday before the election, issued his contrary directive, the text of which you can read in this timely piece by Judd Legum. The issuance of the directive in turn prompted lawyers for the plaintiffs in the case to go back to U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley with an even more urgent request, filed late Friday evening:
This new Directive makes an affirmative change to the previous provisional ballot counting standard, beyond what was required to comply with this Court’s and the Sixth Circuit’s recent orders. Instead, contrary to this Court’s October 26, 2012 decision, the Secretary’s representations to this Court on October 24, 2012, and the Constitution, the Secretary is now ordering that county boards of election must reject provisional ballots when the identification information contained in Step 2 of the ballot affirmation form 12-B is incomplete.
The contours of the legal dispute aren’t narrowing, as some legal disputes do at this stage of an election contest, but instead are growing. They are growing because the secretary of state has just doubled down on his position about incomplete provisional ballots. If he was wrong on Thursday, you could say, he was even more wrong on Friday. And that will likely mean a Monday ruling* from Judge Marbley which will then be appealed into Tuesday (and beyond) to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Folks, the legal fight for Ohio’s votes is already here and here to stay.
If you’re a worrywart like me, you’ll click over and read all the gory details.
Here’s the thing. The Republicans have already signaled their strategy:
THEODORE OLSON, 2000 BUSH CAMPAIGN LAWYER: I’m clearing my calendar just in case I need to be ready for the next five weeks.
JOHNS: He says if elections officials want to avoid litigation, they shouldn’t change direction in the middle of the game.
OLSON: If you follow the rules that were in place on Election Day with respect to counting the ballots, then the presumptive outcome will be respected when the Electoral College votes are counted.
Let’s hope Obama’s lead is too big for any of these shennanigans to be worthwhile.
.