Did Limbaugh's Crossover Voters Break Ohio Law?

[babylonsister]

Did Limbaugh's Crossover Voters Break Ohio Law?
By Kim Zetter
March 12, 2008


A reader tipped me off to an issue that's come up with crossover voters in Ohio. It seems that some Republican voters have bragged online that they voted Democratic ballots in the Ohio March 4th primary in order to influence the outcome of the presidential election. Essentially, they wanted to help Hillary Clinton win the Democratic nomination over Barack Obama because they think she's the weaker candidate and would lose against Republican John McCain in November.

The so-called Republican "plot" was instigated by conservative radio talker Rush Limbaugh (at right) who urged Republican voters in Ohio and Texas before the election to cross over for the primary to rig the nomination for the November election. Voters in those states could do this at the last minute because their local election laws allow voters to change party affiliation at the polls.

Here's a post made by one voter who bragged about switching:

Lastly, they had me sign the affirmation about switching parties and supporting the principles of the Democrat party. I said that would be easy, because they don't have any. Everybody got a good chuckle as there isn't a Democrat within 5 miles any direction from where I vote. I then proceeded to cast my vote for Hillary Clinton. Dirty as it felt at the time, I have a feeling I'll be rewarded in the long run.

It turns out that this voter, and others in Ohio, may have broken the law.

Ohio's revised election code includes an election falsification clause (Revised Code 3513.20), which says that if a voter who changes parties is challenged by poll workers as to the sincerity of his change of heart and also signs an affidavit stating that he supports the principles of the party to which he's changing -- when in fact he doesn't support them -- then he would be committing election falsification. Election falsification is a felony that is punishable by six to twelve months in jail and a $2,500 fine.

It's clear that cross-over voting occurred in large numbers in Ohio this year. The Ohio secretary of state's office doesn't have statistics yet on how many voters crossed parties in the primary (it's still compiling them), but the Cleveland Plain Dealer is reporting that in Cuyahoga County alone, the state's largest county, at least 16,000 Republicans switched parties for the primary.

more...

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/03/did-ohio-crosso.html

[kristopher]

1. I'll be waiting for those stats eom

[NJmaverick]

2. There has to be a way for the Dems to exploit this issue

Just not sure how

[peace13]

3. This is weird because I work the polls in Ohio

and we have an open election. People come to the table and ask for the ballot that they want, that is what open means. As a poll worker I have never been given a document that would walk me through challenging a voter. I live in a very R area and we had more D's than R's voting this time. In fact Obama carried all eight precincts in the township, something that is unheard of. We had a lot of people cross over and my guess is that they voted for Hillary but Obama still won. We had one guy walk away from the table after voting say, 'I'll do anything to not have a President Hussein.' Trust me it was a very long day. peace, Kim

[NEOhiodemocrat]

10. I am a poll worker in Ohio also

As the presiding judge I had a packet that included the statement of allegiance that the changeover voter had to sign. At the bottom of it a judge had to check accepted or not. In our rural NE area we didn't have that many changeover voters. Maybe 9 switched from R to Democratic and I think 2 went from Democratic to R. If a person was in the poll book without a party membership marked we did not question them, just gave them the type of ballot they requested. I was shocked by the number of voters who were not listed as either D or R. I would say that a good 2/3 of those who chose a party this election who did not have one marked previously went Democratic. Several of the ones who did this when we asked, would you like a Democratic, Republican or Issues only ballot would answer "I want to vote for Obama" or "I want to vote for Clinton" and one guy even said "I want to vote for any Democrat, I want out of this war" I didn't hear anyone say "I want to vote for McCain". Only problem I had was the republican judge who was starting to tell people who came in "you can vote Democratic, Republican or Issues only." Then if they said "think I am down as a Republican" she would say, "well in Ohio you can change, vote as a spoiler." I went and stood behind her for a while and she stopped that nonsense.

[peace13]

12. We offered all three ballots without comment.

I am not the presiding judge but we did not fill out any statements of allegiance and I am sure that our PJ did not because I never left the table (minus two restroom breaks). We had many people who picked a ballot other than their registered party. This should be interesting. We may be called in to explain! On a side issue, we had so much consternation with the machines that after 15 years I have pretty much decided that unless we get rid of them I won't be working the polls. I called the SOS to find like minded folks to work with on this issue. We can't use these machines in the fall and expect to get a true result. Peace, Kim

[NEOhiodemocrat]

13. Your presiding judge should have explained the papers

I would imagine they were in her presiding judge packet, unless the counties do it differently. (I am in Mahoning) I am not sure we had every crossover sign one. When it gets busy sometimes it would be possible to miss seeing the little R or D marked there. I tried to keep checking as much as I could. But I didn't handle that book myself except on some judge's breaks. When the R judge started wording it differently I stood behind her and chipped in to everyone who walked up, "would you like a Republican, Democratic or Issues only ballot", she got the idea after I stood there for a while, probably figured she had better stay non partisan or she would be stuck with me on her shoulder all afternoon! Out of four machines we had slight problems with two. But the two republican judges didn't want to tell anyone about the paper ballots, said it would be "going backward". Man, are all republicans so irritating, or am I just unlucky?

[jberryhill]

15. What is the specific text of the statement? /nt

[NEOhiodemocrat]

17. Not sure

Don't have it here, probably can pull it up on the secretary of state website? They had to sign their name and say that they supported the aims of the (fill in choice) party.

[jberryhill]

20. The specific language matters

Was it in the form of a declaration, was there an oath or some other attestation, was the statement of "aims" more specific than that, or subject to subjective weaseling of the variety of, "I believe the aim of the Democratic Party is to embarass itself, and I do support that aim."

That sort of thing.

[GTurck]

4. In Texas too..

I am a Democratic Election Judge and this happened here too. I wish I knew if there was a law such as Ohio's but I really suspect there is not. The Clinton win is badly skewed by the fact that Obama is winning the caucuses. I am very upset by this very un-American dirty trick. Those that did this however see nothing wrong with it.

[babylonsister]

5. Happened in MS, too, but I don't know that there's a law to combat it. nt

[ncazalea]

6. Crossover Voters

With the republican and Dick Morris efforts early on in the primaries the crossover vote for Obama put him over the top in many states. Maybe that issue should be explored as well.

[babylonsister]

8. Obama had many independents voting for him early on; are you

suggesting they're listening to Dick Morris? I don't think so. And I have no problem with republicans or inds. voting for a Dem when all they have in their own party is a warmonger to vote for. I DO have a problem when they're getting their marching orders from Limbaugh to sabotage the Dem election.

[Tarc]

7. Awesome. Ohio has just enacted the nation's first thoughtcrime.

How in earth would they ever prosecute anyone for this? People are going to be put up on the witness stand and demanded to prove whether or not their beliefs are sincere?

Dumb, misguided, unenforceable, and unconstitutional.

[Jim Lane]

19. I don't see this as a "thoughtcrime" -- the legal system must often make such distinctions

Here's another example. Many countries that have military conscription, including the United States during the Vietnam War, attempt to accommodate sincere conscientious objectors. This involves an inquiry into the prospective draftee's beliefs. A draft board or a reviewing panel must decide if the asserted moral beliefs are genuine. In , 348 U.S. 375 (1955), Witmer said he was a conscientious objector. He filled in a questionnaire and was interviewed by his local draft board. The board rejected his claim for exemption because it concluded that he was not sincere in his belief. The Supreme Court upheld his criminal conviction for failing to submit to induction.

A troublesome inquiry for a government agency to be making, obviously, but what's the alternative? You could abolish CO status and imprison everyone who actually does have a sincere moral or religious objection to military service. Alternatively, you could go by the honor system, and grant CO status to anyone who merely says he's a CO.

I don't see it as unconstitutional for the government to try to distinguish between sincere and insincere beliefs, in a context (like the draft and like the Ohio vote) where there's a legitimate public policy goal involved.

[Doctor_J]

9. Yes, but the laws of the US only apply to Dems, so don't worry about it

[bluestateguy]

11. The Republican vote in Ohio was 49% Hillary-49% Obama, according to the exit poll

So the results were not contaminated. Now if people signed a false affidavit, that's something else. Apparently th4e vote challenger law could have been used to stop this.

[eallen]

14. Your conclusion doesn't follow from your facts.

What matters isn't how many voted for Obama and how many voted for Hillary, but how many voted for a candidate they would support in the general election, and how many voted for a candidate they would prefer to oppose in the general election. Those are two very different kinds of votes.

That said, I do agree with the poster above that this law is unconstitutional and unenforceable.

:hippie:

[tom_paine]

16. You know as well as I do the Rule of Law does not apply to Bushies

End of story. Like all the rest.

[colonel odis]

18. republicans like to brag about lots of things they don't actually do.

just because some sorry-ass right-wing chickenhawks put down their milk duds long enough to say from the darkened corners of their parents' basements that they did something .... it doesn't mean for one second that they did it.

always remember that the one thing they do exceptionally well is lie.

[bhikkhu]

21. Is there not then some "conspiracy" clause implicating Rush?

I can't imagine anyone wishing to hunt down and have trials for cross-overs, but I would think that a public figure advocating criminal behavior would be prosecutable for harm done.

In some countries elections and election fraud are taken seriously.

[DRoseDARs]

22. Good God, this is decadently delicious. Can Rush be charged with inciting election fraud?

Yum, yum, yum.

[mcollier]

23. The Amazing thing is

With the ploy from republicans to try to interfer with the democratic primaries in Texas, Ohio and other states, Obama did as well has he did.

That's the real story...

We didn't hear anything about "Race" when Obama won in states like Iowa, Nevada, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Delaware, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Utah, Nebraska, Washington, Maine, Wisconsin, Vermont, and Wyoming...

I believe these states and others do matter.

Contests so far - 30 for Obama / 14 for Clinton


Take a look at the state by state breakdown - http://origin.barackobama.com/resultscenter /

The relentless attempt of the "Powerful" to create distraction, separation and division by use of racial suggestion is the oldest tool in the art of war against ordinary people. Rise above this, look to something new, something better, something real, something good.

Recognize the ability of Barack Obama to bring people of all backgrounds together for the betterment of our Country and our World...

Unfortunately, the same tool of racism is being used to try to destroy what we see can be....

Vote for Barack Obama, but for what he represents, his message, his wisdom, his intellect, his judgment, his commitment to helping every American. We can all be a part of strenghtning American had charting a new course.

Visit www.BarackObama.com Find out how you can join the movement.

Thanks.

[roseBudd]

24. In SW OH Howard Wilkinson politics reporter solicited comments about crossovers after they noticed

the anomalies in the most reliably GOP leaning exurb counties of Warren and Clermont. The article that resulted had 2 quotes regarding the issue and both were taunting quotes from republicans who voted for Hillary.

Subsequent two letters to the Editor were also taunting and the were both for Hillary (though one you had to surmiswe due to clever wording.

We know newspapers only have room for so many LTTEs or quotes. That all published were sabotage voters for Hillary is telling, I think.