Join 3,497 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


one of those days
August 2, 2012 12:31 PM   Subscribe

"I was upset because the political consultants and staff were talking about voter suppression and keeping blacks from voting. It had been one of those days,'' - Jim Greer, former state party chair of the Florida G.O.P, in a deposition for his lawsuit against the party. Scott Horton at Harper's covers the NYT's pox-on-both-your-houses story on vote suppression
posted by crayz (50 comments total) 14 users marked this as a favorite

 
keeping blacks from voting

Nice to have what it's about so cleanly laid out.
posted by Artw at 12:37 PM on August 2, 2012 [13 favorites]


I want to say something snide but ahh thinking about this just makes me so sad.
posted by Theta States at 12:49 PM on August 2, 2012 [1 favorite]


The US news media of course remains fucking useless or activly harmful in this due to attempting to fair and balance their way towards something that won't offend anyone.
posted by Artw at 12:52 PM on August 2, 2012 [3 favorites]


Is the NYT reporting on Greer's story? Seems like a major coup when the leader of your party — in a swing state — basically comes out to call you all a bunch of crooks and loonies:

In a wide-ranging deposition that spanned two days in late May, former Florida Republican Party chairman Jim Greer denounced some party officials as liars and "whack-a-do, right-wing crazies'' as he described turmoil in the months before his resignation.

Are the allegations with merit? Was he pushed out for some other reason? Both? Seems like making this story prominent would be in the public interest.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:55 PM on August 2, 2012 [2 favorites]


I saw the headline, "Partisan Rifts Hinder Efforts to Improve U.S. Voting System," thought "Surely they mean Republicans Hinder Efforts etc"? I didn't even bother reading the article because when you know what nonsense it's going to spew, why bother?
posted by BungaDunga at 12:55 PM on August 2, 2012 [4 favorites]


i thought this might be (SLYT) relevant
posted by robbyrobs at 12:56 PM on August 2, 2012 [1 favorite]


Scott Horton at Harper's covers the NYT's pox-on-both-your-houses story on vote suppression

In (sort-of, but not really) defense of the NYT, they believe that their job is to represent their national constituency, not to tell the truth. Conservatives are readers, sources, and customers, just like anyone else, and they deserve to have their reality reflected within the pages of the Times. I get the impression that the Times doesn't have an editorial "voice" so much as believes that their job is to express the national mood/language of the public. If about half the country believed that the sky was green, they would have to account for that in their stories, because they view themselves as a paper serving as a representative of the public, or at least "establishment" beliefs.

They were comfortable with referring to waterboarding as "torture" before the US actually used it, but once the US started using it, they changed their terminology to reflect the views of their constituency. The NYT is basically the Zelig of newspapers.
posted by deanc at 12:58 PM on August 2, 2012 [10 favorites]


That Harper's piece is rather bizarre. The NYT article it is calling out for failing to tackle the problem of GOP voter suppression is expressly and explicitly not about that issue. It's talking about all the other problems with the US voting system. It looks like the Harper's journalist found a headline that fit his narrative and ran with, facts be damned. That rather undermines his claim to the moral high ground.

Oh, and does anyone here think that any consumer of the NYT or, indeed, any other reputable mainstream US media news outlet would be unaware of GOP voter suppression tactics at this point? The issue has been very widely covered. Once again this is a "OMG, this news article doesn't expressly and explicitly endorse my particular take on this issue, therefore it's COVERING UP THE TRUTH!!!" piece.
posted by yoink at 12:59 PM on August 2, 2012 [2 favorites]


I saw the headline, "Partisan Rifts Hinder Efforts to Improve U.S. Voting System," thought "Surely they mean Republicans Hinder Efforts etc"? I didn't even bother reading the article because when you know what nonsense it's going to spew, why bother?

You and the Harper's journalist both, it seems.
posted by yoink at 1:00 PM on August 2, 2012 [1 favorite]


Oh, and does anyone here think that any consumer of the NYT [...] would be unaware of GOP voter suppression tactics at this point?

Are you kidding? A majority of consumers of the NYT are being on various issues "unaware" of things a child could see.
posted by patrick54 at 1:06 PM on August 2, 2012 [2 favorites]


"one of those days" is where you forget to wear a belt to work or mismatch your socks. This is something else entirely.
posted by boo_radley at 1:07 PM on August 2, 2012 [3 favorites]


Are you kidding? A majority of consumers of the NYT are being on various issues "unaware" of things a child could see.

I'm not asking you "does every reader of the NYT agree with your personal take on the issue" I'm asking you "how many readers of the NYT do you think are unaware that the GOP is pushing Voter ID laws and that Democrats by and large consider the major motivation of these laws is to suppress voter turnout?"

If you have read the NYT regularly over the past several months and remain unaware of this issue and unaware of the competing claims advanced about it then you would remain equally unaware if every single article the NYT published had been a "J'accuse!" tirade against the eeeeevil GOP--because you clearly have no interest in politics whatsoever.
posted by yoink at 1:14 PM on August 2, 2012 [1 favorite]


unaware of the competing claims advanced about it

What are the competing claims exactly? On the one hand vote suppression, on the other hand something something nonexistent electoral fraud mumble mumble.

This isn't "competing claims." This is a truth and a lie.
posted by ook at 1:22 PM on August 2, 2012 [15 favorites]


It's going to be tough explaining to our kids that there was a time when gloating about voter suppression -- in particular suppression of black voters -- resulted in people marching, demonstrating, and showing the world the wide gap between America's principles and practices.

We've had evidence since at least 2000 that voter roll purging companies have strong ties to Republicans and that the purges disproportionately affect the poor and minorities; that Republicans actively deceive voters; and that they are well aware that large voter turnout helps Democratic candidates.

This should be earth-shaking news, that a state GOP chair is disgusted by his party's voter suppression tactics -- just like GOP operatives bragging, again, since at least 2000, that their vile actions will deliver states to Republican candidates should be earth-shaking news.

I don't think things will get better until people who consider themselves moderate, centrist, fair, and "pretty far to the left, but..." stop criticizing Republicans in this voice while criticizing Democrats IN THIS VOICE. Direct evidence of Republican malfeasance is no way equivalent to allegations and hypotheticals about how the Dems mighta/coulda/woulda done something.
posted by lord_wolf at 1:29 PM on August 2, 2012 [17 favorites]


I'm a (somewhat recent) resident of Florida. I registered to vote this year. This crap, which goes hand in hand with a myriad of other injustices to the same effect in this state, is the reason I registered.

It's likely I'll be casting my vote on a party line ticket for anyone who is best in line to beat a Republican opponent despite my disagreement with some Democratic policies because, ya'know, if I vote for anyone it's not going to be the person or party that desires, connives, and legislates to deny a certain subset of the population their right to a vote.

Fuck'em.
posted by RolandOfEld at 1:31 PM on August 2, 2012 [8 favorites]


... and thanks for the post.
posted by RolandOfEld at 1:33 PM on August 2, 2012 [1 favorite]


If you have read the NYT regularly over the past several months and remain unaware of this issue and unaware of the competing claims advanced about it then you would remain equally unaware if every single article the NYT published had been a "J'accuse!" tirade against the eeeeevil GOP

Well that's a lovely implicit false dichotomy. I believe Scott Horton's pretty clearly-made point is that we now have many confirmed, high-profile sources within the GOP on record as saying that their efforts to change voting laws have the explicit goal of disenfranchising minorities and Democratic-leaning voters. The GOP's sole defense of their actions is that it's an attempt to stop vote fraud, a claim that no one upon no one takes seriously

So to simply continue printing "competing claims" regarding an issue when the people writing and editing the story know for a fact that one of the sets of claims is essentially true, and the other is essentially a bald-faced lie, the New York Times is then choosing to participate in that lie. No one forces the New York Times to print Republican lies, or prohibits them from factually identifying the statements as lies. It is their choice to print lies and allow their readers to believe there are simply two groups squabbling about, to believe they are informed because they have read the competing claims in our newspaper of record, all the while one group is pulling the rug out from under our voting system for their own gain and the other group is trying to alert us to that fact (for their own benefit, but ours incidentally as well)
posted by crayz at 1:33 PM on August 2, 2012 [6 favorites]


What are the competing claims exactly? On the one hand vote suppression, on the other hand something something nonexistent electoral fraud mumble mumble.

This isn't "competing claims." This is a truth and a lie.


Yeah, so? I was capable of coming to that conclusion from reading the "mainstream media" reports on the issue. I'm guessing you arrived at that conclusion from reading the "mainstream media" reports on the issue too. What I don't want is any fucking report that spares me the trouble of making up my own mind. And it's just utter contempt for people at large that fuels this idea that the media needs to predigest every issue for everyone in case they come to the "wrong" conclusions.

I'm always amazed at the people who think Fox News has a terrible, terrible model, but basically seem to think the only problem with it is that they tell you to think the wrong things--not that the whole "telling you what to think" thing is the problem.
posted by yoink at 1:43 PM on August 2, 2012 [2 favorites]


I'm always amazed at the people who think Fox News has a terrible, terrible model, but basically seem to think the only problem with it is that they tell you to think the wrong things--not that the whole "telling you what to think" thing is the problem.

The problem is the fact that the claims by the reporters have fact-checkers for verification, but the subjects of the journalism rarely do. It means that false equivalences flourish.
posted by jaduncan at 1:45 PM on August 2, 2012


I believe Scott Horton's pretty clearly-made point is that we now have many confirmed, high-profile sources within the GOP on record as saying that their efforts to change voting laws have the explicit goal of disenfranchising minorities and Democratic-leaning voters.

Actually, what he says is that we have ONE disgruntled former GOP official making an unsupported allegation. I know you would like this to be trumpeted as "GOP OFFICIAL PROVES BEYOND ANY POSSIBLE SHADOW OF A DOUBT THAT GOP IS KNOWINGLY AND CONSCIOUSLY ENGAGED IN DELIBERATE AND REALLY REALLY RACIST VOTER SUPPRESSION!!!" but that's not, in fact, the story that we have. Then he points to an NYT story which is explicitly NOT about the Voter ID issue as his proof that the NYT is playing a "both sides are to blame" game on the Voter ID issue. It's frankly embarrassing.
posted by yoink at 1:47 PM on August 2, 2012 [1 favorite]


I'm always amazed at the people who think Fox News has a terrible, terrible model, but basically seem to think the only problem with it is that they tell you to think the wrong things--not that the whole "telling you what to think" thing is the problem.

I do not think I have ever seen that opinion expressed before.
I generally just hear that Fox News is terrible because they are a blatant and unapologetic bullhorn for conservatives and the Republican party, manufacture talk points for GOP politicians, and amplify every little story it can scrape up to reinforce a false fear of persecution towards a vision of Conservatism that is easiest to reinforce and sell?
posted by Theta States at 1:51 PM on August 2, 2012 [2 favorites]


> It had been one of those days,''

Meaning, in this case, "every day."
posted by "But who are the Chefs?" at 2:05 PM on August 2, 2012 [2 favorites]


What I don't want is any fucking report that spares me the trouble of making up my own mind.

Actually, I don't believe that lies are allowed equal dignity and treatment alongside the truth. Not only is "stenographer" an already-existing profession separate from "journalist", but political parties and politicians already have an army of newsletter-writers, publicists, and advertising agencies telling us what they're saying. Newspapers and newscasters don't need to provide those services to politicians for free.
posted by deanc at 2:06 PM on August 2, 2012 [24 favorites]


Actually, I don't believe that lies are allowed equal dignity and treatment alongside the truth.

This times a thousand.
posted by jason_steakums at 2:11 PM on August 2, 2012 [6 favorites]


... they deserve to have their reality ...

Stunning.

No. I mean, just no. No one deserves his or her own version of reality. Reality is whatever it is, regardless of what you or I or any group of individuals thinks about it. And reality does not owe any one of us a damn thing. So no, if I am wrong about something, I do not deserve to have my ignorance coddled and my ego soothed by a "news" organization presenting known falsehoods as if they were facts.

I realize that "news" agencies are for-profit, entertainment enterprises, but I do not think that that state of affairs is healthy. News agencies ought to report the truth, whatever that truth happens to be. Whether it agrees with their political convictions or not, the truth ought to be what shows up in the news. If getting there means more strongly regulating news agencies, forcing them into non-profit status, or whatever, then so be it.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 2:45 PM on August 2, 2012 [19 favorites]


No one deserves his or her own version of reality. Reality is whatever it is, regardless of what you or I or any group of individuals thinks about it. And reality does not owe any one of us a damn thing. So no, if I am wrong about something, I do not deserve to have my ignorance coddled and my ego soothed by a "news" organization presenting known falsehoods as if they were facts.

This a thousand times.
posted by eoden at 3:07 PM on August 2, 2012 [2 favorites]


No one deserves his or her own version of reality. Reality is whatever it is, regardless of what you or I or any group of individuals thinks about it. And reality does not owe any one of us a damn thing.

effugas really nailed this in a thread last year.
posted by ryanshepard at 3:28 PM on August 2, 2012 [2 favorites]


Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

-Daniel Patrick Moynihan
posted by Benny Andajetz at 3:48 PM on August 2, 2012 [3 favorites]


These are the days when I wish I had a different name.
posted by grimjeer at 3:54 PM on August 2, 2012 [2 favorites]


deanc was not saying that everyone deserves their own reality reflected back to them. deanc was saying the NYT thinks that everyone deserves their own reality reflected back to them.
posted by DU at 4:57 PM on August 2, 2012


If getting there means more strongly regulating news agencies, forcing them into non-profit status, or whatever, then so be it.

I like the sentiment and agree with everything up to this sentence, but I'm desperately afraid of explicitly giving whatever government is in power the ability to dictate "truth".
posted by LordSludge at 5:05 PM on August 2, 2012


^ truth reality
posted by LordSludge at 5:06 PM on August 2, 2012


This isn't "competing claims." This is a truth and a lie.

Yeah, so? I was capable of coming to that conclusion from reading the "mainstream media" reports on the issue.


Then why are you still dignifying the lie by using phrases like "competing claim" to describe it? That's what I was getting at: the insidious way the he-said-she-said language infects even those (like you and like me and like most of the people on MetaFilter) who know better.
posted by ook at 5:12 PM on August 2, 2012 [1 favorite]


we have ONE disgruntled former GOP official making an unsupported allegation

Funny how those who know first-hand about the GOP's dirty dealings and discover within themselves the conscience needed to expose it are always "disgruntled" for some reason.
posted by Aquaman at 5:52 PM on August 2, 2012 [1 favorite]


How to stop this.

1) Become a Democratic Party voting judge in a GOP district

2) Challenge everyone to produce ID, because you are protecting the vote.
posted by eriko at 6:33 PM on August 2, 2012


New Analysis: Voter Purges Disproportionately Remove Minorities, Seniors, Young People
posted by homunculus at 6:34 PM on August 2, 2012


Remember: historically, it's rich white people who stuff the ballot box.
posted by eriko at 6:35 PM on August 2, 2012 [1 favorite]


My whole adult life I have voted - or, more likely, have had my votes deleted - in Florida. Straight Dem, usually, or whatever the hell options I get that are not Republican. Ridiculous write-in candidates when the only name on the ticket is (R) because I do not care that someone has to carefully note down one vote for Batman, I care that it will go on record that there was one vote against, instead of x votes abstaining.

I am not surprised in the slightest that this all has been going on. Not a bit.

What boggles my mind is seeing one of these fuckers actually copping to it. That's, just, so far past the border into Opposite World we may have lapped universes and come back 'round to reality somehow.
posted by cmyk at 6:56 PM on August 2, 2012


deanc was not saying that everyone deserves their own reality reflected back to them. deanc was saying the NYT thinks that everyone deserves their own reality reflected back to them.

Oh crap. You're absolutely right. Sorry deanc, I didn't read your comment nearly carefully enough.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 8:27 PM on August 2, 2012 [1 favorite]


I'm always amazed at the people who think Fox News has a terrible, terrible model, but basically seem to think the only problem with it is that they tell you to think the wrong things--not that the whole "telling you what to think" thing is the problem.

Yeah, this, exactly.

God forbid that we could admit that there's wrongdoing on both sides. No, instead we have to pretend that Democrats are lily clean, and Republicans are all twirling their mustaches and tying women to train tracks.

Let's talk about Democrat vote suppression, shall we? Historically, time after time, Democrats challenge military absentee voter ballots, or military voting apparatus while protesting out of the other side of their mouth that they just want to let everyone vote.

Democrats restrict military voting, because military historically votes Republican. But somehow that never comes up in these "voter suppression wars."

While people claim they're not partisan.
posted by corb at 11:24 AM on August 3, 2012


Let's talk about Democrat vote suppression, shall we? Historically, time after time, Democrats challenge military absentee voter ballots, or military voting apparatus while protesting out of the other side of their mouth that they just want to let everyone vote.

Wow, that's rich. You've somehow made two isolated incidents well over a decade apart an ongoing trend that happens "time after time." What's better is that one of your links is to a second-hand Breitbart conspiracy theory post that is, unsurprisingly, a lie that is the complete opposite of what is actually happening:
President Obama’s re-election campaign has filed suit in federal court to block a Republican-sponsored Ohio law that mandates an end to early, in-person voting a full three days before Election Day this fall.
But somehow that never comes up in these "voter suppression wars."

You mean lies? Why should they come up, unless you're using those lies to fake stories of equal-oppurtunity voter suppression?

While people claim they're not partisan.

And people wonder why we're talking about playing the "everybody does it all the time" game.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:14 PM on August 3, 2012 [3 favorites]


Also, from even the commenters from your second link (which, it should be noted, is a conservative veterans' blog and not a news source) don't agree:
It seems to me the lawsuit is simply seeking to restore the ability for anyone to cast a ballot in person on the Monday before elections, not just the military. An ability they had before it was taken away by the Republican-controlled legislature in Ohio (also in the article). How is this restricting the rights of the members of our military? Nothing is being changed in their voting options.
and
And as a matter of legal precedent, I can understand the concerns of the various groups mentioned. But to portray this as the Obama campaign going after the rights of military voters rather than simply trying to restore the ability of non-military voters to cast in-person ballots for the same extended period of time seems like quite a reach. I haven't yet read the legal documents, but can we agree that provided that precedent is not set, there's nothing wrong with giving civilian and military people the opportunity to vote during that same (extended) period?
and
First and foremost, it is illogical to restrict voting to just members of the military when you already have the polls open for early voting anyway. It makes no sense to add an extra layer of ID-checking (I assume military members must show military ID to get to vote, or else why are we bothering with this?) to the process. Just let everyone who comes in to vote, vote. So I agree with the Dems to want the law fixed to include everybody.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:26 PM on August 3, 2012 [2 favorites]


Military voters traditionally need more time to vote because of mission-related circumstances, because they're, y'know, defending their country and suchlike. Even the sympathetic Politico article points out that the Democratic lawsuit is attempting to reduce special protections for military voters,
In Obama for America v. Husted, the complaint alleges that distinction between military and nonmilitary voters violates the equal protection clause of the federal constitution.
Thus, potentially endangering multiple laws in many, many other states designed to allow extra time for military voters - time they sorely need, because it's really hard to say, vote from a FOB, or vote when you've been doing three days of continuous work.

Here's another Dem-sympathetic source that points to instances of Democrats attempting to limit the right of military to vote at their last home-of-record, though they claim it's "not a history" just because it's happened a few times.

Obama's DoJ has also been accused numerous times of failing to adequately protect the rights of military voters under the MOVE act, with heavily Democratic states requesting and receiving waivers from following the law.
posted by corb at 2:18 PM on August 3, 2012


(Also, for disclosure, I should note that I was one of those military voters disenfranchised because my Democratic-dominated state didn't feel like complying with the law, so none of my votes from overseas got counted.
posted by corb at 2:21 PM on August 3, 2012


Military voters traditionally need more time to vote because of mission-related circumstances, because they're, y'know, defending their country and suchlike. Even the sympathetic Politico article points out that the Democratic lawsuit is attempting to reduce special protections for military voters

It says nothing of the sort. If you were quoting the article in good faith, you would have included the preceding sentence:
Republicans and Democrats in Ohio have been tussling over voting rights rules for most of the last year. Most recently, the [majority Republican] legislature ended early voting in the three days before the election — but kept it in place for military voters.
In other words, there is absolutely nothing being reduced or taken away from anyone in the military, but in fact a restoration of rights taken from civilian voters.

Thus, potentially endangering multiple laws in many, many other states designed to allow extra time for military voters - time they sorely need, because it's really hard to say, vote from a FOB, or vote when you've been doing three days of continuous work.

Again, there is nothing here removing extra time for military voters. It's a flat-out 100% lie.

Here's another Dem-sympathetic source that points to instances of Democrats attempting to limit the right of military to vote at their last home-of-record

First of all, we're going to need to see some hard evidence that Politifact is "another Dem-sympathetic source." Second, the article you refer to calls the allegations half-true. And here's why:
The nonprofit group had found that 203 absentee voters in the 1996 election had last resided in the county more than 10 years before. One absentee voter had last voted there in 1986 and also owned a home in Florida. Another military voter indicated in his questionnaire that he and his spouse lived in Bexar County and had only spent their honeymoon in the county 26 years earlier[...]Did White's positions — which he hasn't backed off — equate to limiting the right of military personnel to vote? Well, he'd certainly make it harder for those personnel wanting to vote in state and local elections with the same ease some exploited to cast ballots in the Val Verde County election of 1996.
In other words, the lawsuit amendment (which both failed) had at least some supporting evidence in the form of hundreds of instances where a loophole was being exploited.

Obama's DoJ has also been accused numerous times of failing to adequately protect the rights of military voters under the MOVE act, with heavily Democratic states requesting and receiving waivers from following the law.

By "numerous times," I see from your link that it's actually only been once, by Republican Senator John Cornyn (TX), who based it on second-hand evidence from Fox News, who in turn relied on the word of right-wing blogger who had previously been hired by one of the leading members of the DOJ civil rights division political hiring scandal under Bush, and who is the main push behind the manufactured New Black Panther Party conspiracy theories. Hilariously, Cornyn's own state Republican party attempted to violate the requirements of the MOVE Act not long after. Not only that, but the DOJ actually has been suing states for noncompliance, three of which (Alabama, Wisconsin, and Georgia) have Republican legislatures.

though they claim it's "not a history" just because it's happened a few times.

Well, yes, it's hard to call two instances of something a "history." Just as its hard to make the case that hundreds of alleged cases (many of them arguable) of voter suppression by Democrats are equivalent to the actual or intended voter suppression of millions entirely for demographic purposes that have been admitted to by Republican officials. So instead, you make up a strawman and claim that no one says that there's wrongdoing on both sides (never happened), and then base your argument on sources that are at the least not saying what you claim they do and at worst are actually lying and/or manufacturing controversy. Just like previous claims of an attorney general who is suing to overturn parts of the Voting Rights Act as evidence of widespread voter fraud turned out to be discredited, you're making statements of false equivalency and dubious veracity. The fact that the basis of several of your claims of civil rights violations comes from people who actually engaged in it is a little disturbing.
posted by zombieflanders at 3:50 PM on August 3, 2012 [3 favorites]


New SuperPAC, FightBigotry.com, Smears President Obama For ‘Racism Against White Folks’
posted by homunculus at 6:07 PM on August 3, 2012


You Can't Beat Voter ID with Facts
posted by homunculus at 6:11 PM on August 3, 2012 [1 favorite]


God forbid that we could admit that there's wrongdoing on both sides.

Wrong, corb, it's that there appears to be some kind of doctrinaire obligation to act as if both sides are both just as wrong in the same ways when there is a quantifiable moral difference. But certain journalists feel an obligation to make procrustian adjustments to fit a "both sides are just as bad" narrative.

This reached a fever pitch of idiocy with this article by George W. Bush cousin John Ellis claiming that while Republicans were trying to suppress minority votes by raising barriers to early voting and requiring voter IDs that they didn't have, Obama was doing the exact same thing to white voters by... wait for it... running negative ads about Romney.
posted by deanc at 12:34 PM on August 4, 2012 [2 favorites]


Ed Morrissey, who runs the popular conservative website Hot Air sides with the Obama campaign:
[T]he likely remedy proposed would be to remove the Friday deadline for everyone — and that’s exactly what the plaintiffs are proposing. Gabriel Malor forwarded me a link to the brief, and the relevant language within it:
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request of this Court the following equitable relief:…

B. A preliminary and permanent order prohibiting the Defendants, their respective agents, servants, employees, attorneys, successors, and all persons acting in concert with each or any of them, from implementing or enforcing lines 863 and 864 of Sec. 3509.03 (I) in HB 224, and/or the SB 295 enactment of Ohio Revised Code § 3509.03 with the HB 224 amendments, thereby restoring in-person early voting on the three days immediately preceding Election Day for all eligible Ohio voters;
So no, they aren’t trying to block military members from getting to the polls, but arguing that since the polls will be open anyway, everyone else should have access to them as well.
Also, here's a DOJ list of cases where they've sued states to enforce extended access for military voters.
posted by zombieflanders at 4:28 PM on August 4, 2012 [2 favorites]


Oh, and unsurprisingly Romney is parroting the lie.
posted by zombieflanders at 4:31 PM on August 4, 2012


« Older Comics artist Frazer Irving adapts Mary Shelly's F...  |  Montreal Cops Chase Skateboard... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments