Court says the Ohio polling challenges are not lawful
Motion DENIED. Ref A Cincinnati couple have won their case. Docket, Issues. Ohio Election News
An order by U.S. District Judge Susan Dlott of Cincinnati found that plaintiffs who brought a lawsuit likely would be able to prove that Ohio's law allowing polling place challengers was unconstitutional.Also,
In a similar case, U.S. District Judge John Adams of Akron said poll workers are the ones to determine if voters are eligibleThe theory revolves around equal protection-treatment. In so many words, the following best summarizes the legal theory:
Because voting is a fundamental right, the government may not deprive voters of equal treatment in the absence of evidence that it is seeking to advance a compelling state interest using means that are narrowly tailored to advance that interest RefParties: On other sides of another issue
Cincinnati city councilman Sam Malone is bringing the 6th Circuit appeal against Marian Spencer, described as "a former vice mayor of Cincinnati and also past president of the Cincinnati chapter of the NAACP." Ref
Malone had recently said, "This campaign will give us an opportunity to recognize some civil-rights pioneers." Ref Strange that someone would promote themselves as being a "civil rights pioneer" by apparently endorsing practices that would intimidate a fellow African-Americans like Spencer.
Both the Spencers have been vocal advocates against Article XII, encouraging others to vote "Yes on 3" in Ohio, both named as "Honorary Board of Advisors" ref. Spencer had a Feb '04 public affairs appearance. Ref
Malone leads the "Equal Rights NO Special Right" Ref, Ref
The courts also found that in-person challenges to voting is not constitutional; and that voter registration challenges are also problematic. Ebony Malone had hear case heard before Judge Debevoise.
History of RNC at the polls
Let's look at the history of voting intimidation. The Republicans are on the wrong side on this one. More than 20 years ago there were other situations and the RNC agreed, at that time, to never engage in the practice anywhere. Tiryak v. Jordan, 472 F. Supp. 822, 824 (E.D. Pa. 1979)
The Republicans admitted no wrongdoing, but signed a promise never to target minority voters for special treatment -- anywhere in the nation. ... That 22-year-old settlement agreement is why a case will be argued today in federal district court in Newark that could affect the outcome of the presidential election.refPart of the 1980s agreement stipulated that the court be informed and consulted on planned actions. Failing to see any compelling evidence the RNC has complied with their 1980s agreement, we raise grave doubts whether the RNC is truly the party to be relied upon to ensure promises are adequately kept.
Such alleged misconduct is not new as the RNC is not uknown to endorse selective readings of the law to arrive at pre-determined outcomes, however unlawful.
Even when the RNC knows in advance the likely-potential legal challenges to actions the courts have now struck down, the RNC proves it is incapble of effectively organizing compelling legal arguments to previail in litigation. Ref Ref
The pervasive pattern
Yet, it should come as no surprise that the RNC apparently cannot be trusted to comply with their previous agreements; or why the RNC-candidates also choose to ignore the laws of war, the Constitution, and treaties.
Consider White House counsel Gonzalez's memo in re "the president's right to authorize unlawful torture" in contravention to Geneva. We can only wonder what important legal issues were selectively ignored. Ref
In re the planned RNC-organized poll-challenges, we posit: Was Judge Debevoise adequately consulted and was approval gained as required and freely agreed to; or did the RNC, despite the promises in the 1980s, not bother to ...
seek Debevoise's approval before conducting further so-called "ballot security" measures in New Jersey or elsewhere. RefIt is problematic when misconduct occurs. More egregious when previous agreements are apparently violated.
Yet, the RNC wants the country to believe "we are the proper party to govern." Just don't remind them of the law.
Our constitution will only survive, not because the RNC or their candidates have anything to do with it, but because brave people like those in Cincinnati dare to challenge that which we so long ago found most abhorrent.
It is troubling when a nation's "leadership" must, at great cost, be reminded of the agreement to which they swore an oath to preserve, protect, and defend both abroad and at home. Indeed, they require multiple reminders.
How the RNC treated votes in NJ and OH should remind the nation what to expect in the future: The real prospect of jail time does little to dissuade those who "know best".