Last night, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 2-1, vacated the district court's injunction requiring Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner to make efforts to verify voter registration information. The Columbus Dispatch reports:
The three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Brunner is not required to provide county elections boards with the names of voters whose personal information does not match state motor-vehicle or federal Social Security records, as ordered Thursday by U.S. District Court Judge George C. Smith of Columbus.
Brunner had sought an emergency order delaying Smith's order, and the appeals court agreed with Brunner that federal law does not require her to provide the names and that the Nov. 4 election is too close for major policy changes.
The panel noted that the process of matching voter information with state and federal records has been in place since 2007, and that the details about mismatches are available to counties on individual voter records, even if not in one list. . . .
Judge Richard Allen Griffin dissented, saying the three-judge panel should not have acted so quickly and that Brunner's "lack of concern for the integrity of the elections process is astounding and deeply disturbing."
More here.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- Recusal Row in Ohio Republican Party v. Brunner:
- Thoughts on Brunner v. Ohio Republican Party:
- Ohio SoS Seeks Emergency Stay from Justice Stevens:...
- Fraudulent Registrations No Threat:
- Sixth Circuit Sides with Ohio SoS; Vacates Injunction:
- Is Voter Registration Fraud Unavoidable?
You need to close the tag.
Replace colored with white and what kind of reaction would you get? Catholic?
And I'm not sure what the problem is, as it was a federal court that the appeals struck down. Is the complaint that the appeals court shouldn't have struck down the US District Court's ruling, or this is a correction of it?
Wouldn't it be great to have a sci-fi alternate universe where the situations were reversed and we could grade people over time how principle-consistent they were between the two worlds? Would any of us score much above zero?
"Wouldn't it be great to have a sci-fi alternate universe where the situations were reversed and we could grade people over time how principle-consistent they were between the two worlds? Would any of us score much above zero?"
At least we wouldn't have to worry much about hobgoblins...
I would also not be the least little bit surprised to find that the two majority judges on the panel were Democrat appointees, although I do not know this for a fact.
You also can't be bothered to do the least bit of actual research on the matter.
Senior Judge Myron Bright concurs, UMn BA, UMn JD, LBJ Judge, aged 89
Norman Bates
I guess you thought I was talking about the minor opinion, when I was talking about the nattering here.
Yes, by designation.
J Aldridge -
This was a contention re: a very narrow requirement under 42 USC 15483, the "Help America Vote Act' (HAVA), that the state(s) had to put in place a manner of comparing voter records with Motor Vehicle Department records. Ohio's S of S claimed that she complied with HAVA, and such a system existed. Plaintiffs argued that although the system comparing both data bases existed, there was no real manner of differentiating those records which showed a discrepancy (between voter registration and motor vehicle bureau records).
Marion Moore--appointed by Willy Clinton (and notorious moonbat liberal) [My thanks to The Drill Sergeant for supplying the judges' names]
Research really isn't necessary in cases like this. I started with the thoroughly verified premise that Demmocrat-appointed judges regard the courts as a mechanism for undemocratically imposing their policies and fellow-travelers on the public. I applied it to this case to predict the party affiliations of the judges who violated circuit court procedures to achieve their desired ends. My predictions were correct adding further empirical credence to my initial hypothesis.
I also expect that my other prediction, that an an en banc hearing by the Sixth Circuit will reverse this politically motivated Bright-Moore machination, will be verified in the next few days. Final Score -- Democrat Party: 0; The People of Ohio: 1.
I hope the 6th Circuit reverses this idiocy but I have little confidence that any judge or group of judges can be trusted to pay the slightest attention to the Constitution or any law that limits their power to dictate policy from the bench.
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.