• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ohio voter suppression law ruled unconstitutional

In reading that it seems to me that it limits the votes for both parties, not a particular party. It seems, as usual, you want to spin it a particular direction. I'm all for early voting. I've never had a problem with it. And I really don't think it will give an edge to either party in this election.
 
Point of clarification: the judge didn't find anything unconstitutional; He granted a preliminary injunction, which means that the court found that, at this preliminary stage, the party seeking the injunction has demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the underlying claim, among other things.
 
Details, details... the racist conservatives have been repelled. That is all you have to take away from this. It makes rj the moderate positively giddy for some reason.
 
Remember: You should not need an ID to vote but you should need one to hear the attorney general or first lady speak.
 
KitchinDeac said:
Point of clarification: the judge didn't find anything unconstitutional; He granted a preliminary injunction, which means that the court found that, at this preliminary stage, the party seeking the injunction has demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the underlying claim, among other things.
Click to expand...

Kitchin, what are you talking about?

"Economus concluded that the law was unconstitutional in changing the in-person early voting deadline and that the state was wrongly valuing certain votes above others"

Dirk, I had the details correct as you can see from above.
 
RaleighDevil said:
Remember: You should not need an ID to vote but you should need one to hear the attorney general or first lady speak.
Click to expand...

You don't have a constitutional right to attend an invitation only event or a closed event.
 
Fringe right conservatives claim to be aghast at the slightest governmental intrusion into (or limitation of) a delineated constitutional right without a clear and fundamentally necessary purpose. Unless, of course, they don't want a group of people to vote in the next election. In which case they blindly support a completely unfounded and unsubstantiated new set of regulations that inhibit the most precious of our constitutional rights, the right to vote, without any hard evidence that such laws are necessary (in fact, in the face of considerable evidence that they are completely unnecessary).
 
RJKarl said:
Kitchin, what are you talking about?

"Economus concluded that the law was unconstitutional in changing the in-person early voting deadline and that the state was wrongly valuing certain votes above others"

Dirk, I had the details correct as you can see from above.
Click to expand...

Economus is the best name ever. I want it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top