today things got testy because Obama wants to stop the military from voting came up meme again. no matter how much a person disproves it, it keeps coming back.
And true to form, "Snope" is a liberal front" and "the media is biased" and so on.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, file this complaint against Defendants and allege as follows:
Nature of Action
1. Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to restore in-person early voting for all Ohioans during
the three days prior to Election Day – a right exercised by an estimated 93,000
Ohioans in the last presidential election. Ohio election law, as currently enacted by
the State of Ohio and administered by Defendant Ohio Secretary of State, arbitrarily
eliminates early voting during the three days prior to Election Day for most Ohio
voters, a right previously available to all Ohio voters. This disparate treatment
violates 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and can be rectified by the Court enjoining enforcement of statutory changes that eliminate early in-person voting for most Ohioans during the three days before an election.
2. Specifically, taken together, Amended Substitute House Bill Number 194 (“HB
194”), Amended Substitute House Bill Number 224 (“HB 224”) and Substitute
Senate Bill Number 295 (“SB 295”), all enacted by the 129th Ohio General
Assembly, impose different deadlines for in-person voting prior to Election Day
(“early voting”) on similarly situated voters. Prior to the enactment of these laws,
there was a single uniform deadline of the Monday before Election Day for inperson
early voting. After the enactment of these laws, voters using the Uniformed
and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voter Act (“UOCAVA”) may vote early in-person
at a board of elections office up through the Monday before Election Day, while
non-UOCAVA voters can vote early in-person at a board of elections office (or
designated alternate site) only up until 6 p.m. on the Friday before Election Day.
3. The differential treatment of UOCAVA and non-UOCAVA voters with respect to
early voting appears to be the result of a confused legislative process initiated by the
Ohio General Assembly after citizens of the State commenced the process to subject
HB 194 to a referendum. HB 194 was a 300-page bill passed by a Republicandominated
legislature that limited voting rights in a number of respects, including by
shortening the time period for early voting – an option more likely to be used by
groups of voters that tend to support Democratic candidates. While the referendum petitions on HB 194 were circulating, the Ohio General Assembly passed HB 224 with “technical corrections” to the early in person voting laws. Then, after Ohio
citizens exercised their right to hold a referendum vote on HB 194 by qualifying for the general election ballot, the Ohio General Assembly passed SB 295 to repeal HB 194, but failed to also repeal the corresponding “technical corrections” made by HB 224 in the interim. Whether caused by legislative error or partisan motivation, the
result of this legislative process is arbitrary and inequitable treatment of similarlysituated
Ohio voters with respect to in-person early voting.
4. The Ohio General Assembly has failed to articulate any justification for this
differential treatment of UOCAVA and non-UOCAVA voters, and no justification
can be discerned. Indeed, these different deadlines exist despite the fact that, for
purposes of in-person early voting, both UOCAVA and non-UOCAVA voters are
identically situated, i.e., they are qualified electors who are physically present in
their home county when they desire to vote in-person at their county board of
elections office prior to Election Day.
5. This inequitable approach to early voting will have a significant impact on voters.
Between 2005 and 2011, Ohio successfully administered an early-voting system that
included in-person voting in the three days prior to Election Day. This early voting
system increased participation among voters, including those for whom work or
family obligations make it difficult to vote on Election Day, and reduced the
congestion that caused such severe waits during the 2004 presidential election in Ohio that some citizens were effectively denied the right to vote. Indeed, as noted above, approximately 93,000 Ohioans voted in the three days prior to the 2008
presidential election. Now, as a result of HB 224 and SB 295, most Ohio voters will not be permitted to vote in the three days prior to Election Day for no apparent reason. Without early voting in these last three days before Election Day, tens of thousands of citizens who would have otherwise exercised their right to vote during this time period, including Plaintiffs’ members and supporters, may not be able to
participate in future elections at all.
6. This unequal burden on the fundamental right to vote violates the Equal Protection
Clause of the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs have no plain, adequate, or
complete remedy at law other than the relief requested in this Complaint. Unless the
changes made to Ohio Rev. Code § 3509.03 by HB 224 and SB 295 are enjoined by
this Court, Plaintiffs and the voters they represent will be directly and irreparably
harmed in upcoming elections.
7. For these reasons and those specifically alleged herein, Plaintiffs seek a declaratory
judgment, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants
from implementing or enforcing the HB 224 and SB 295 changes to Ohio Rev. Code
§ 3509.03, thereby restoring in-person absentee voting on the three days
immediately preceding Election Day for all Ohio voters.
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/ObamaforAmericavHustedcomplaint.pdfWhile the Bulletin Board has a "Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down" function, my posting of the actual lawsuit's language has received plenty of TDs, I'm still waiting for someone to restate the lie.
= new reply since forum marked as read
