@Joe: I still don't understand how this could come back to bite you. Say I vote in a Democratic primary. I check the box or punch the chad or whatever for Hillary. Say I also write "Fuck you Dems" on the ballot. I turn it in. Vote counters: "Crap! Somebody voted maliciously! But who?" They have nothing on me, right?
You're talking about the general election in November, right?
I am hoping for American presidential candidates based mostly on their level of sanity. Barack seems just out ahead as he hasn't, at least, said anything bat-shit crazy. He does seem slightly too good to be true though; probably a secret scientologist.
You're talking about the general election in November, right?
I am hoping for American presidential candidates based mostly on their level of sanity. Barack seems just out ahead as he hasn't, at least, said anything bat-shit crazy. He does seem slightly too good to be true though; probably a secret scientologist.
I know a fair number of folks among the FRC who hope he's a secret atheist.
@Joe: I still don't understand how this could come back to bite you. Say I vote in a Democratic primary. I check the box or punch the chad or whatever for Hillary. Say I also write "Fuck you Dems" on the ballot. I turn it in. Vote counters: "Crap!Somebodyvoted maliciously! But who?" They have nothing on me, right?
You don't register at the ballot box (or at least not in my state). Your vote itself may be confidential, but people can review information you provided when you registered to vote. Also, they can track where you vote. A common little crime back in KY was voting in the wrong district. I saw a lot of people prosecuted for that.
RUSH: All right, so The Nation magazine is now going to have to lump Obama in with me as a lawbreaker. Now, why is Obama doing this? He's doing this to counter us, folks. He's doing this because we're having so much success with Hillary crossovers on the Republican Party, voting for her. So Obama has joined the fray, running ads on radio stations in Pennsylvania urging Republicans to crossover vote for him, and telling them how to do it, how to register, when to do it, the deadline is I think a week from tomorrow, March 25th. Well, I don't know about redoubling the efforts here, Snerdley. I'm not sure we have to redouble the efforts. I think with Obama out there, I think Obama will redouble the efforts. The Hillary supporters in the Republican Party will hear what Obama is doing -- (laughing) -- I think they'll know enough -- do you realize every day there are 20 news stories on this. I haven't even touched that stack. Here, let me start with it now. I mean, there's no more informing of the voters that needs to take place. They don't need marching orders. They're already revved up to do it.
source - Yeah it's Limbaugh and I can't find any other references for Obama running radio ads telling Republicans to cross over.
@Joe - I'm standing with you on this one. However, because the law is not worth prosecuting over my stand is that which I wrote above.
My personal opinion (and I have discussed it with some "left wing" bloggers who agreed with me) is that we need to get rid of open primaries and not allow voters to switch parties (or register) from the time primaries start to the time they end. The only exception would be to allow people who will be of voting age when the primary comes around to register early (before they turn 18) so they will not miss the primary.
You can only prosecute people under the Ohio law if they have admitted to changing parties for the sole purpose of screwing up the Democratic primary in Ohio. You can't get Rush because he never signed any "loyalty oath".
I also believe that "loyalty oaths" are not legal in this case because you could easily charge any registered Democrat in Ohio who votes outside of the party as being in violation of their loyalty oath.
Yeah it's Limbaugh and I can't find any other references for Obama running radio ads telling Republicans to cross over.
Steve, you ignorant slut. There's nothing wrong with trying to get voters of any party to vote for you. Sammy Davis Jr. famously endorsed Nixon in a "Democrats for Nixon" ad. It's the FRAUD part that makes it illegal. Don't you see the difference? Limp-paw asked people to switch parties for the specific purpose of fraud and then to switch back. If he had asked people to sincerely vote for Clinton because she was the best candidate, there's be no problem.
Your cites about loyalty oaths are moot because this law doesn’t require a loyalty oath. Also, I didn’t ask for cites about loyalty oaths. I asked for cites about Obama suborning election fraud. You cited Limbaugh. If that’s your source, then you’re a shit-talker.
You can only prosecute people under the Ohio law if they have admitted to changing parties for the sole purpose of screwing up the Democratic primary in Ohio.
More legal scholarship. So you can't prove a crime unless you have an explicit confession?
You can't get Rush because he never signed any "loyalty oath".
I don't care what oath he signed or didn't sign. He suborned election fraud. That's the crime. I don't understand how you're stuck on the term "loyalty oath".
I also believe that "loyalty oaths" are not legal in this case because you could easily chargeanyregistered Democrat in Ohio who votes outside of the party as being in violation of their loyalty oath.
What is it with the "loyalty oath" crap? Any registered voter of any party in Ohio can vote for whoever they want in the proper primary or general election. That's not what these people did. They fraudulently switched parties to vote in a primary in which that they would not have otherwise voted for the express purpose of fraud.
You're talking about the general election in November, right?
I am hoping for American presidential candidates based mostly on their level of sanity. Barack seems just out ahead as he hasn't, at least, said anything bat-shit crazy. He does seem slightly too good to be true though; probably a secret scientologist.
He may not be saying things that are "bat-shit-crazy" but he does have a problem with his associations. Even Oprah left the church that Obama belongs too when the reverend started giving those bat-shit-crazy sermons.
I know some people like to defend his associations but the key point here is that you pick your associations when it comes to friends and people you choose to hang out with. I don't think McCain "chose" to have Bush as his President. He ran against him in the 2000 primaries. If the reverend were Obama's blood relative we could easily dismiss the association but Obama chose him as his spiritual leader/advisor.
Hillary chose Bill as her husband and continues to do so my staying married to him.
According to the media spin Obama is getting a bigger percentage of the cross-over voters than Hillary is. If this is true why is she still in the race? Could it be that Hillary is winning the Democratic base and Obama is not?
Obama has a very high likability factor, no one can deny that. The man has an 18 charisma and it shows. I just don't know if his wisdom is high enough to be President. Hillary has a very low charisma but a high intelligence. She is very cunning and knows politics. McCain? He does have Wisdom and enough intelligence to admit when something is beyond him (economics) which tells me he will have no problem appointing people more knowledgeable than him to those positions in his cabinet.
None of the candidates particularly catches my interest. As much as I would not enjoy four years of "we're back" if Hillary gets into office I think she will be far more likely to run a "business as usual" presidency than Obama.
They fraudulently switched parties to vote in a primary in which that they would not have otherwise voted for the express purpose of fraud.
What then is the fraud?
Is the fraud voting for Hillary to keep her in the race? Is the fraud voting for Hillary because they want McCain to face her in the general election?
I latched onto the "loyalty oath" because the Democratic party in Ohio has people sign a loyalty oath when they register as Democrats.
3599.36 Election falsification. No person, either orally or in writing, on oath lawfully administered or in a statement made under penalty of election falsification, shall knowingly state a falsehood as to a material matter relating to an election in a proceeding before a court, tribunal, or election official, or in a matter in relation to which an oath or statement under penalty of election falsification is authorized by law, including a statement required for verifying or filing any declaration of candidacy, declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate, nominating petition, or other petition presented to or filed with the secretary of state, a board of elections, or any other public office for the purpose of becoming a candidate for any elective office, including the office of a political party, for the purpose of submitting a question or issue to the electors at an election, or for the purpose of forming a political party.
Whoever violates this section is guilty of election falsification, a felony of the fifth degree.
Every paper, card, or other document relating to any election matter that calls for a statement to be made under penalty of election falsification shall be accompanied by the following statement in bold face capital letters: “Whoever commits election falsification is guilty of a felony of the fifth degree.â€Â
I still read this law as applying to people running for office not registering for a political party. Can you please explain to this idiot how the above law applies to registering for a political party?
(B) When the right of a person to vote is challenged upon the ground set forth in division (A)(3) of this section, membership in or political affiliation with a political party shall be determined by the person’s statement, made under penalty of election falsification, that the person desires to be affiliated with and supports the principles of the political party whose primary ballot the person desires to vote.
It seems to me (idiot shit-talker that I am) the only way to prosecute this thing is if the challenge is issued at the time of voting and the person subsequently switches parties after the primary (and before). If someone switches only for the duration of the primary than they can easily be brought on charges based on Ohio law (and I fully support this). However, if they do not switch back until much later (after November perhaps?) it becomes nearly impossible to prove that they were crossing over just to screw up the primary.
Is the fraud voting for Hillary to keep her in the race? Is the fraud voting for Hillary because they want McCain to face her in the general election?
That's the fraud.
I still read this law as applying to people running for office not registering for a political party. Can you please explain to this idiot how the above law applies to registering for a political party?
Read again, and try to read for comprehension:
No person, either orally or in writing, on oath lawfully administered or in a statement made under penalty of election falsification, shall knowingly state a falsehood as to a material matter relating to an election in a proceeding before a court, tribunal, or election official, or in a matter in relation to which an oath or statement under penalty of election falsification . . .
Party affiliation is a material matter.
Now will you please just be still? You asked what the law was and I told you. That's an end to it. If you think you can change it, go to law school.
OK. If filling out a party registration form is a material matter under the law then the way to prosecute this is to get a list of all voters who switched before the primary and then switched back after the primary. I would consider that enough evidence to charge them under the law.
However, if someone crossed over to vote with the intention of screwing up the Democratic primary and they do not switch back (in the next 6 months or year) then you can not easily include them in this law suit because by waiting that long they can just say they became disillusioned with the party or some other such nonsense and use that as a defense..
So, to clear the air:
1. Have the Ohio Democratic Party compile a list of all newly registered Democrats who switched over from Republican/Independent. 2. Have the Ohio Democratic Party compile a second list of all registered voters who switch away from the Democratic party between primary and November. 3. Any person whose name is on both lists gets brought up on charges based on this law.
I can fully support the above action.
I would be curious to see historic numbers on registered Independents in Ohio who switch for the primaries and then switch back.
I seriously question the logic of news agencies calling the vote when only 6% has reported and only one county of the major population centers has reported.
Comments
Vote counters: "Crap! Somebody voted maliciously! But who?"
They have nothing on me, right?
Law Bloggers Take Both Sides of Ohio Voter Fraud Debate
GOP will demand 'oath' of February primary voters
COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIANA v. WHITCOMB, 414 U.S. 441 (1974) deals with loyalty oath and mentions other cases of same
Ohio ACLU view on loyalty oath as regards to Ohio Patriot Act
Ohio Democrats Call For The Central Scrutinizer… source - Yeah it's Limbaugh and I can't find any other references for Obama running radio ads telling Republicans to cross over.
I also believe that "loyalty oaths" are not legal in this case because you could easily charge any registered Democrat in Ohio who votes outside of the party as being in violation of their loyalty oath.
Your cites about loyalty oaths are moot because this law doesn’t require a loyalty oath. Also, I didn’t ask for cites about loyalty oaths. I asked for cites about Obama suborning election fraud. You cited Limbaugh. If that’s your source, then you’re a shit-talker. More legal scholarship. So you can't prove a crime unless you have an explicit confession? I don't care what oath he signed or didn't sign. He suborned election fraud. That's the crime. I don't understand how you're stuck on the term "loyalty oath". What is it with the "loyalty oath" crap? Any registered voter of any party in Ohio can vote for whoever they want in the proper primary or general election. That's not what these people did. They fraudulently switched parties to vote in a primary in which that they would not have otherwise voted for the express purpose of fraud.
I know some people like to defend his associations but the key point here is that you pick your associations when it comes to friends and people you choose to hang out with. I don't think McCain "chose" to have Bush as his President. He ran against him in the 2000 primaries. If the reverend were Obama's blood relative we could easily dismiss the association but Obama chose him as his spiritual leader/advisor.
Hillary chose Bill as her husband and continues to do so my staying married to him.
According to the media spin Obama is getting a bigger percentage of the cross-over voters than Hillary is. If this is true why is she still in the race? Could it be that Hillary is winning the Democratic base and Obama is not?
Obama has a very high likability factor, no one can deny that. The man has an 18 charisma and it shows. I just don't know if his wisdom is high enough to be President. Hillary has a very low charisma but a high intelligence. She is very cunning and knows politics. McCain? He does have Wisdom and enough intelligence to admit when something is beyond him (economics) which tells me he will have no problem appointing people more knowledgeable than him to those positions in his cabinet.
None of the candidates particularly catches my interest. As much as I would not enjoy four years of "we're back" if Hillary gets into office I think she will be far more likely to run a "business as usual" presidency than Obama.
Is the fraud voting for Hillary to keep her in the race?
Is the fraud voting for Hillary because they want McCain to face her in the general election?
I latched onto the "loyalty oath" because the Democratic party in Ohio has people sign a loyalty oath when they register as Democrats. I still read this law as applying to people running for office not registering for a political party. Can you please explain to this idiot how the above law applies to registering for a political party?
The only law I can find that you can use for this legal action is this one 3513.19 Challenges at primary elections. It seems to me (idiot shit-talker that I am) the only way to prosecute this thing is if the challenge is issued at the time of voting and the person subsequently switches parties after the primary (and before). If someone switches only for the duration of the primary than they can easily be brought on charges based on Ohio law (and I fully support this). However, if they do not switch back until much later (after November perhaps?) it becomes nearly impossible to prove that they were crossing over just to screw up the primary.
Now will you please just be still? You asked what the law was and I told you. That's an end to it. If you think you can change it, go to law school.
However, if someone crossed over to vote with the intention of screwing up the Democratic primary and they do not switch back (in the next 6 months or year) then you can not easily include them in this law suit because by waiting that long they can just say they became disillusioned with the party or some other such nonsense and use that as a defense..
So, to clear the air:
1. Have the Ohio Democratic Party compile a list of all newly registered Democrats who switched over from Republican/Independent.
2. Have the Ohio Democratic Party compile a second list of all registered voters who switch away from the Democratic party between primary and November.
3. Any person whose name is on both lists gets brought up on charges based on this law.
I can fully support the above action.
I would be curious to see historic numbers on registered Independents in Ohio who switch for the primaries and then switch back.
Does that sound good to you Joe?