Ohio again is likely to play a pivotal role in the POTUS election. Aparently alarmed by the increase in likely-Dem voter registrations, the Ohio Republican Party (ORP) is doing what it can to tamp down registrations. I won't go into all the details here, but the ORP has filed something on the order of ten suits in the past month.

The most recent round of litigation has to do with ORP's desire to obtain what can only be described as caging lists. The statewide voter registration database (SVRD) compares entries with the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV), if there's a match with info on file, the entry is verified. If no match the registration is sent to the Social Security Administration (SSA). Mismatches or non-matches are flagged in the SVRD so any local board of elections (BOE) can look up a particular voter and determine if info matches or if they should investigate further.

The apparent glitch is that the SVRD may not be sending contemporaneous notices of mis-/non-matches to the local BOE. That may, or may not be, compliant with the letter and spirit of HAVA. Regardless, the BOE could, say, wait a few days and check new registrations in the SVRD. Where this emerged as a "problem" was when the ORP requested lists by county of all new registrants who requested an absentee ballot at the same time. Since this is the first POTUS election in which Ohio has "no fault" absentee voting, there was a six-day window when absentee ballots were available, before the registration deadline (9/30 – 10/06), AND when this same day registration/voting* would likely be used by Obama supporters.

When SOS Brunner informed the ORP she could not do that, they filed suit alleging noncompliance with HAVA. In hindsight a better approach may have been for Brunner to refuse on the basis that ORP's request was an attempt to develop caging lists. Taking the tack she did, she ended up in court. Court orders ran on again/off again, in terms of reconfiguring the SVRD or producing lists, as the case made its way from District to Circuit courts, then finally SCOTUS, who vacated District's order based upon ORP's lack of standing. Now we're on to about round five by going back to the Ohio SC and limiting the request to verifying new registrations who requested an absentee ballot. Timing is crucial here since BOEs may begin to open absentees beginning 10/25 which effectively ends anyone's ability to challenge.

On the positive side, this legal wrangling has already run out the clock for individual challenges (20 days before the election) which may have been part of the Secretary's game plan. Second, the SCOTUS decision effectively removes the possibility of a blanket challenge to the approximately 200K new registrants since Jan. 1 who could have been required to vote provisionally.

The drama continues . . .

While the state went Blue in the election, ClearChannel and local stations drop progressive talk in Cincinnati and Columbus. This is nuts. Check out http://www.ohiomajorityradio.com / and sign the petition.

Thanks.

as of HB 3, passed January 2006, no federal election may be challenged under state law. Thus, it's extremely unlikely even an obvious and illegal case of disenfranchisement would alter the results certified.

That's why it's so important there are no concessions and recounts are requested when there's even a hint of irregularities.

about Ohio law. Any violation of Chapter XXXV (Elections) is considered a prima facie case of fraud. He got bad advice and quit without even requesting a recount.