Did anyone else see this in the SCOTUS OH voter case....

[pepperbear]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/6065300.html

But the victory for Brunner was short-lived.

David Myhal, a Republican from New Albany, filed a lawsuit asking the state Supreme Court to issue an order so that local election officials separate any ballots from voters whose registration information doesn't match records in state or federal databases.

If there is a mismatch, the boards would be required to determine whether the person is an eligible voter.

The court gave Brunner until Monday to file her response.

"separate ballots from voters" does mean "take ballots away from voters", correct?

Also, does anyone know what the breakdown of the vote was? I haven't found that anywhere.

[WritersBlock]

1. Hmm... guess that means ol' Joe the Plumber then, because wasn't his name mis-spelled on the voter

registration records there in Ohio?

I can't remember where I read that, but it was here on DU. I'll try to find a link.

[LiberalHeart]

2. Yes, there was an O in his last name where the U should be.

[fulllib]

3. I don't know . . .

I do know the vote was unanimous; it was actually some legal term, something comitatus, which means basically it didn't warrant full consideration and they all signed on.(Someone correct me if I'm out on a limb by myself)

[JDPriestly]

4. I have this feeling this will backfire. Republicans are notoriously bad spellers.

The number of typos on DU is much lower than on sites frequented by the general public or by Republicans.

[JDPriestly]

5. The article does not explain the basis on which Myhal claims standing.

The Court ruled that HAVA does not provide a cause of action to individuals. That means that Myhal will get nowhere if he is suing as an individual for enforcement of HAVA. Is he suing based on some other law or right?

[ColbertWatcher]

6. It'd be easy to find out if ...

... any of the GOP-controlled media outlets would simply publish the name of the case.

I've checked you link to the Houston Chronicle, the Washington Post, LA Times, New York Times, Wikip*dia and their news site and the BBC. None of them published the name of the case.

WTF!?

I believe I am in error. There is simply no way that so many "journalists" failed to follow the "who, what, where, when, why" rule.

[cliffordu]

8. I think the only point here is to keep the MEME of "lawsuits filed concerning

DEMOCRATS trying to steal the election...." up in the air....Don't matter if they actually win or not.

If Obama wins, they have a PR claim that it was stolen.....

And this asshole DOES have a PR firm.......

[ColbertWatcher]

9. I was thinking that the name of the case needs to be kept on the down-low ...

... so no one knows who's suing who.

Hell, in addition to the ones I listed above, I also checked the Wall Street Journal, Seattle Post-Intelligencer and FindLaw--still nothing.

[cliffordu]

10. Could be it's just a bullshit announcement by whoever announced it......

maybe the court clerk didn't get it out early enough.....

[ColbertWatcher]

11. Oh, just an FYI: the name is Brunner v. Ohio Republican Party (links inside)

Post by DarthDem, the DUer who answered my desperate plea (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4260167&mesg_id=4260175) and the link for the ruling, from the Supremes themselves (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08A332.pdf)

[ColbertWatcher]

12. And the ruling was unanimous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_term_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#2008_term_opinions

[SeattleGirl]

7. Fucking goddamned Republicans just can't help it, can they?

They cannot STAND it that people actually WANT to vote!

Hope y'all burn in hell!

[Berry Cool]

13. No, what it means is that the local officials will separate ballots by "no-match" voters

from ballots by voters that match the records and are thus assumed to be from eligible voters. Then, when they have all the "no-matches" separated out, the boards will have to determine whether the voters who cast those ballots are eligible or not.

Of course, that is a way of disenfranchising the "no-match" voters after the fact. Which means that those voters aren't being challenged at the polls, or deprived of ballots and being forced to vote provisionally...it means that they might receive and vote on a regular ballot, thinking their vote is safe, but then THEIR BALLOTS MIGHT BE SEPARATED OUT, CHECKED AND DISCARDED AFTER THEY HAVE VOTED.

It's even more insidious and evil than challenging them at the polls, because it creates no obvious confrontations with the voter face to face, and no one election protection personnel can come to their defense when they are challenged.

[LisaL]

15. How exactly is it going to be done? Voting is anonymous.

Once you cast your ballot, how do you think it's going to be separated? You don't put your name on the ballot.
Doesn't make a lick of sense.

[LisaL]

16. Apparently the lawsuit is about absentee ballots, where

the separation could be done.
That's why I don't want to vote absentee or early.

[malaise]

14. Did the Rethugs read what the Supremes wrote

Sounds like bullspit to me.

[alfredo]

17. Many of the discrepancies can be due to clerical errors at the county clerk

office. Why should a voter be disenfranchised because of a misspelled name? Ohio has a lot of eastern European residents. The lack of vowels in a name can throw even the best clerk.