View Full Version : Obama sues to block voting extension for military
And so it begins. Obama’s campaign has sued Ohio to block a measure which extends early voting for members of the military.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Ohio-military-vote-Democrats/2012/08/03/id/447552?s=al&promo_code=FAA3-1#
ddoering
08-06-2012, 04:52
Nothing new here. The Dems disenfranchised the military back in the 2000 election as well with the recount in Florida. They have a history of this double standard, block the military from voting while allowing and encouraging illegals to vote. I wonder how long before the military disenfranchises them?
I think if you look deeper into the suite it's to make voting "equal" for all.
Is it fair to have special voting days for one class of people?
How about early voting ends for everybody on Friday - but D's can still come down and vote the Monday before elections?
It seems they're trying to 'restore' the right for all Ohioans to again be allowed to vote 'in person' during the same period which was a change brought about this year by the state legislature, not disenfranchise the military as many pundits have been quick to claim.
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.
Obama Not Trying to Curb Military Early Voting
http://factcheck.org/2012/08/obama-not-trying-to-curb-military-early-voting/
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
I think if you look deeper into the suite it's to make voting "equal" for all.
Is it fair to have special voting days for one class of people?
How about early voting ends for everybody on Friday - but D's can still come down and vote the Monday before elections?
I think fairness is a misnomer in this example, I don't think its fair that only volunteers support their country in military service. But then who wants a dead beat beside you on a mission.
I understand your point Pete, but, I think that given the logistics of being an active duty soldier, and the simple fact that they are the ones that put it all on the line, all the time, 3 more days is the least they can do to accomodate their schedule. If they opened it up to where you could go down at anytime and vote early, that would be fine, but they have a specific window. That doesn't always fit the soldiers schedule.
There is no right in the constitution to vote for the president anyway, I wish they would repeal the 17th amendment and give the power BACK to the people. That would make our political system more honest, easier, cheaper and over all more effective.
I think fairness is a misnomer in this example, I don't think its fair that only volunteers support their country in military service. But then who wants a dead beat beside you on a mission.
I understand your point Pete, but, I think that given the logistics of being an active duty soldier, and the simple fact that they are the ones that put it all on the line, all the time, 3 more days is the least they can do to accomodate their schedule. If they opened it up to where you could go down at anytime and vote early, that would be fine, but they have a specific window. That doesn't always fit the soldiers schedule.
There is no right in the constitution to vote for the president anyway, I wish they would repeal the 17th amendment and give the power BACK to the people. That would make our political system more honest, easier, cheaper and over all more effective.
So it doesn't fit the soldiers schedule. What about the fire department, the police department etc. I am sure there are many of them that would say they put it on the line everyday as well.
There is a really easy way for military members to ensure they get to vote, request an absenteee ballot. I haven't voted at a polling place since I was in college, but have voted in every election since 1994 via absentee ballot.
As far as your statement as to voting rights in the Constitution, that is one of the rights we as military members protect and defend. If we aren't protecting the right to vote for the President, I wonder what you think we are protecting. And why do you believe repealing the 17th Ammendment would give power BACK to the people? The 17th Ammendment actually gives the individuals in the state the right to elect their Senators, vice the State Legislature. How would repealing it do what you suggest?
ddoering
08-08-2012, 09:57
There is a really easy way for military members to ensure they get to vote, request an absenteee ballot. I haven't voted at a polling place since I was in college, but have voted in every election since 1994 via absentee ballot.
You are mistaken wrt absentee ballots. They are not generally counted unless the elect is close and they are the easiest ballot to protest and get thrown out out.
You are mistaken wrt absentee ballots. They are not generally counted unless the elect is close and they are the easiest ballot to protest and get thrown out out.
So by all means, let's not use them.:munchin
The attached addresses the process by which absentee ballots are counted in each state.
So it doesn't fit the soldiers schedule. What about the fire department, the police department etc. I am sure there are many of them that would say they put it on the line everyday as well.
There is a really easy way for military members to ensure they get to vote, request an absenteee ballot. I haven't voted at a polling place since I was in college, but have voted in every election since 1994 via absentee ballot.
As far as your statement as to voting rights in the Constitution, that is one of the rights we as military members protect and defend. If we aren't protecting the right to vote for the President, I wonder what you think we are protecting. And why do you believe repealing the 17th Ammendment would give power BACK to the people? The 17th Ammendment actually gives the individuals in the state the right to elect their Senators, vice the State Legislature. How would repealing it do what you suggest?
Repealing it wouldnt help the people directly, but Would shift power back to the states and away from the federal gov't. as it stands now state governments no longer have any say in how the Feds can or cannot interfere in state affairs.
So it doesn't fit the soldiers schedule. What about the fire department, the police department etc. I am sure there are many of them that would say they put it on the line everyday as well.
There is a really easy way for military members to ensure they get to vote, request an absenteee ballot. I haven't voted at a polling place since I was in college, but have voted in every election since 1994 via absentee ballot.
As far as your statement as to voting rights in the Constitution, that is one of the rights we as military members protect and defend. If we aren't protecting the right to vote for the President, I wonder what you think we are protecting. And why do you believe repealing the 17th Ammendment would give power BACK to the people? The 17th Ammendment actually gives the individuals in the state the right to elect their Senators, vice the State Legislature. How would repealing it do what you suggest?
As just a civilian, I can look at this at this as a glass half full or empty. But Afchic's points seem like someone somewhere should be listening to her...JMHO.:munchin
So it doesn't fit the soldiers schedule. What about the fire department, the police department etc. I am sure there are many of them that would say they put it on the line everyday as well.
As far as your statement as to voting rights in the Constitution, that is one of the rights we as military members protect and defend. If we aren't protecting the right to vote for the President, I wonder what you think we are protecting. And why do you believe repealing the 17th Ammendment would give power BACK to the people? The 17th Ammendment actually gives the individuals in the state the right to elect their Senators, vice the State Legislature. How would repealing it do what you suggest?
Yes, I agree with there being a great many individuals that "put it on the line" everyday, however, the military personnel are unique in as much as they are half way around the world or in route. That is the biggest element that I think lends credence to their being deserving of a few more days. The rule of "best laid plans" and all.
You could argue that if they were more disciplined in using their time wisely then they could surely vote early, but sometimes when your prepairing to be gone for a year or so, the time you WANT and SHOULD be disciplined in using, is that with your family. Voting gets put off. Not saying it makes it right, just that I couldn't fault someone for wanting to spend every waking second with their kids, wife and family, verses going down to the clerks office.
But I digress. As early as 1828 Congress and incoming President Andrew Jackson called for direct popular election of United States Senators AND PRESIDENTS. Senators were appointed by state legislatures, a practice that would remain unchanged until the Progressive Era of the early Twentieth Century. Ratified by three-quarters of the states, the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution provided for two Senators “from each state", and while the system prior to ratification of the 17th amendment, was thought of as corrupt because it often allowed "pole taxes", disenfranchising the poorer elements of society I know, but the key thing it did well I thought was it didn't allow just anyone with a pulse to walk into a poling place and vote for the President at all, and only allowed the individual to vote for their state legislators, this made the legislators be MUCH more directly responsible to his constituency, and less able to hide behind the excuse of "well theres nothing we can do until the next election, the people elected this president".
The ratification of the 17th amendment, while well intended I'm sure, had the direct opposite effect of government by the people and for the people in the sense that it made it virtually impossible to have your voice (individually or as a group) being heard. Try and get an appointment with the president to voice your opposition to whatever new legislation he may be representing, you can't. But you can with a local legislator. THAT simple as it may sound proposition IMHO, is a much better way to have the peoples voice heard. The guy in Washington doesn't have to give you time, the guys in your state capitol do.
I think that instead of using "polling taxes", as they did prior to the 17th's ratification, there should be a minimal civics test in order to qualify to vote, and it be something similar to what we now have in place for newly patriated citizens. If you don't have a basic, conceptual understanding of free market capitolism, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and be able to name the sitting President, VP, Sec of State, Sec of Defense, etc, then you aren't paying enough attention to the situation that is at hand and in need of understanding in order to vote. IMHO
We have certain segment of our population, unfortunately, that have made careers out of voting in a manor that is easily pandered to, putting our government and its system in a severe downward spiral because they have found a way to vote themselves a pay check and other benefits, and all they have to do is vote for a particular president.
And, lastly, and at the risk of being completely misunderstood, I believe that my dear Grandmother was right when she said "the biggest governing mistake men ever made was allowing women to vote, because they vote with an ever changing heart, not their head".
Repealing it wouldnt help the people directly, but Would shift power back to the states and away from the federal gov't. as it stands now state governments no longer have any say in how the Feds can or cannot interfere in state affairs.
I would have to respectfully disagree Scooter. I think by giving power back to the states that WOULD help the people directly.
Dozer523
08-10-2012, 08:15
Yes, I agree with there being a great many individuals that "put it on the line" everyday, however, the military personnel are unique in as much as they are half way around the world or in route. That is the biggest element that I think lends credence to their being deserving of a few more days. The rule of "best laid plans" and all.
You could argue that if they were more disciplined in using their time wisely then they could surely vote early, but sometimes when your prepairing to be gone for a year or so, the time you WANT and SHOULD be disciplined in using, is that with your family. Voting gets put off. Not saying it makes it right, just that I couldn't fault someone for wanting to spend every waking second with their kids, wife and family, verses going down to the clerks office. Antman, you clearly have never had the chance to witness a Second Lieutenant fullfilling the duties of Voting Assistance Officer.
As for the "WANT and SHOULD" comment. BS. You do what needs doing. And Shoulds come before Wants.
BTW that 2LT will be waiting downrange, too
Yes, I agree with there being a great many individuals that "put it on the line" everyday, however, the military personnel are unique in as much as they are half way around the world or in route. That is the biggest element that I think lends credence to their being deserving of a few more days. The rule of "best laid plans" and all.You could argue that if they were more disciplined in using their time wisely then they could surely vote early, but sometimes when your prepairing to be gone for a year or so, the time you WANT and SHOULD be disciplined in using, is that with your family. Voting gets put off. Not saying it makes it right, just that I couldn't fault someone for wanting to spend every waking second with their kids, wife and family, verses going down to the clerks office.
But I digress. As early as 1828 Congress and incoming President Andrew Jackson called for direct popular election of United States Senators AND PRESIDENTS. Senators were appointed by state legislatures, a practice that would remain unchanged until the Progressive Era of the early Twentieth Century. Ratified by three-quarters of the states, the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution provided for two Senators “from each state", and while the system prior to ratification of the 17th amendment, was thought of as corrupt because it often allowed "pole taxes", disenfranchising the poorer elements of society I know, but the key thing it did well I thought was it didn't allow just anyone with a pulse to walk into a poling place and vote for the President at all, and only allowed the individual to vote for their state legislators, this made the legislators be MUCH more directly responsible to his constituency, and less able to hide behind the excuse of "well theres nothing we can do until the next election, the people elected this president".
The ratification of the 17th amendment, while well intended I'm sure, had the direct opposite effect of government by the people and for the people in the sense that it made it virtually impossible to have your voice (individually or as a group) being heard. Try and get an appointment with the president to voice your opposition to whatever new legislation he may be representing, you can't. But you can with a local legislator. THAT simple as it may sound proposition IMHO, is a much better way to have the peoples voice heard. The guy in Washington doesn't have to give you time, the guys in your state capitol do.I think that instead of using "polling taxes", as they did prior to the 17th's ratification, there should be a minimal civics test in order to qualify to vote, and it be something similar to what we now have in place for newly patriated citizens. If you don't have a basic, conceptual understanding of free market capitolism, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and be able to name the sitting President, VP, Sec of State, Sec of Defense, etc, then you aren't paying enough attention to the situation that is at hand and in need of understanding in order to vote. IMHO
We have certain segment of our population, unfortunately, that have made careers out of voting in a manor that is easily pandered to, putting our government and its system in a severe downward spiral because they have found a way to vote themselves a pay check and other benefits, and all they have to do is vote for a particular president.
And, lastly, and at the risk of being completely misunderstood, I believe that my dear Grandmother was right when she said "the biggest governing mistake men ever made was allowing women to vote, because they vote with an ever changing heart, not their head".
Wow, where to begin.
As far as having a "few extra days" and in the case of Ohio I think the number is actually 3. If you are half way around the world, you still have a voting officer, as Dozer states. If you place value on voting in elections then you will make sure you get your paperwork in for an absentee ballot in plenty of time. When it is recieved you fill it out and put it back int he mail. If you can't manage your time well enough to do that in the allotted time given, then it really isn't that important to you in the first place.
Secondly, we have all had occassion to be away from our families for long periods of time. In this day and age, it is rare not to know you are going to be deploying for an extended period of time, unless there is a global crisis that pops up. If you place value on your vote, you will dedicate the time to do what needs to be done before you deploy. Just as you do in ensuring your wills are filled out, powers of attorneys are signed, and family care plans are in place. If you place value on your right to vote, you may even take your children down to the polling place with you, so they can see first hand why wearing a uniform and protecting our right to vote is a basic premise of why we do what we do. They may not understand it when they are little, but when the time comes for them to cast their first ballot, hopefully they will remember that time when they were little, and understand why mom and dad put on their uniform every day, so that they are given a say as to how a their country is run.
A few years ago, when I was the legislative affairs officer for a COCOM, I was sent to a class on the Hill. During that class we had the opportunity to have a lecture on why our form of government is the way it is. The speaker started with this "It's all Oliver Cromwell's fault". If you understood that statement you were allowed to leave and didn't have to listen to the 3 hour lecture. No one left, and I heard the BEST lecture I have ever heard on why our government is the way it is. It is set up to protect us from both the tyranny of the majority, as well as the tyranny of the minority.
We have two houses of government that are diametrically opposed to one another. One that is answerable to it's consituents every 2 years. Therefore they like to get things done quickly, and be able to go home and show their consituents they are "bringing home the bacon". The other only has to answer to its constituents every 6 years, and therefore are able to balance the other house's wish to move things along quickly. They have the time to slow down the pace, and look at the good of the nation as a whole, vs just what is good for the constituents back home.
If anyone thinks that battles on the Hill are dems vs repubs you are sorely mistaken. The key battles are between the House and the Senate, as they should be. We don't have a perfect system, but it is better than anything else out there.
As to your thoughts on the women vote, if you are concerned about being misunderstood, as you state, I find it strange that you did not try to clarify your statement. Seems to me, you are just looking for a fight, with nothing to support your premise.
We have two houses of government that are diametrically opposed to one another. One that is answerable to it's consituents every 2 years. ..... The other only has to answer to its constituents every 6 years, and therefore are able to balance the other house's wish to move things along quickly................
That's not the way it was set up. Senators were appointed by the states - to protect the state's interests.
Direct election of the Senate now makes them little different from the house - lobiests just have to grease their palms with a little more loot.
From what I was taught in that lecture, and what is on the Senate's website: The framers believed that in electing senators, state legislatures would cement their tie with the national government, which would increase the chances for ratifying the Constitution.
Pete, I think we are both arriving at the same point, although we took different roads to get there. In the beginning the Senate's "constituents" were the State Houses. And you are correct in stating they were there to protect a State's rights, in that they were seen as State "Ambassadors". The Senate was a check on the House in order to ensure that "mob rule" did not become the law of the land.
There are many arguments that can be had on whether or not by direct election the Senate is now no better than the House. But there is a lot to be said for fact that they have a "longer term" outlook than that of the House, which was designed to be more accountable to the changing whims of its constituents. A lot can change over a 6 year term, not so much in a 2 year term.
The Reaper
08-10-2012, 17:39
I live in a state in which both state houses have been Democratically dominated since Reconstruction.
We have had a number of Republican Senators, mostly conservative, and there is no way that they would have been elected by the Deomcratic State House and Senate.
The current system works better for us, and I suspect, for the nation.
Most of us seem to forget that the founders of this nation never seem to have anticpated career politicians. Men who never intended to leave office once they were elected. This would have been unthinkable to most of our ancestors.
As far as the extra three days go, I have been a Voting Assistance Officer. There are limits to what you can do.
You have to request the ballot by a form from your home of record. Then they mail the absentee voting packet to you. Mail to the hinterlands of Afghanistan is slow. I saw my mail taking as much as ten days to get from CONUS to the APO at Bagram AB, the main port of entry into AFG. Ten days (or more) for the request to get to the voting official.
The states frequently are late having the ballots printed and getting them out. Then they are delivered via the APO system. One week to prepare your voting packet and to put it in the mail system. Ten more days to deliver it to the main bases in Afghanistan.
We currently have guys scattered across Afghanistan, significant percentages of which are in groups of twelve men or less, living in mud huts with the locals.
These guys are not resupplied by road. Most of their resupply is kicked to them by parachute from an aircraft. Occasionally a rotary wing will arrive and take mail out, but they may go for a month or more without being able to get anything out. Call it a month, for argument's sake.
Once they are completed and notarized, they have to be picked up and put back in the APO system for return to the voting officials. Could be ten days or more to get them back home.
That totals potentially as much as sixty days or eight and a half weeks from the time the ballot is requested till it is back home for counting. And it is going to be closely scrutinized by Democratic election officials for any error that could invalidate it.
I seriously doubt that anyone residing in the 48 lower states has to deal with anything like those delays.
Those people who sat on their asses and failed to get to the polls for early voting for 27 days are hardly being disenfranchised by having to wait three more days till election day itself to vote.
Just an old soldier's opinion, YMMV.
TR
Antman, you clearly have never had the chance to witness a Second Lieutenant fullfilling the duties of Voting Assistance Officer.
As for the "WANT and SHOULD" comment. BS. You do what needs doing. And Shoulds come before Wants.
BTW that 2LT will be waiting downrange, too
Your right, I never have. I always took care of that before hand. I DID what I should.
That's not the way it was set up. Senators were appointed by the states - to protect the state's interests.
Direct election of the Senate now makes them little different from the house - lobiests just have to grease their palms with a little more loot.
This is correct....
From what I was taught in that lecture, and what is on the Senate's website: The framers believed that in electing senators, state legislatures would cement their tie with the national government, which would increase the chances for ratifying the Constitution.
Pete, I think we are both arriving at the same point, although we took different roads to get there. In the beginning the Senate's "constituents" were the State Houses. And you are correct in stating they were there to protect a State's rights, in that they were seen as State "Ambassadors". The Senate was a check on the House in order to ensure that "mob rule" did not become the law of the land.
There are many arguments that can be had on whether or not by direct election the Senate is now no better than the House. But there is a lot to be said for fact that they have a "longer term" outlook than that of the House, which was designed to be more accountable to the changing whims of its constituents. A lot can change over a 6 year term, not so much in a 2 year term.
Afchick, I don't necessarily disagree with your assertion of the Senates role in the overall "whimsical control" nature of its constituents, they did use the "mob rule" excuse to control them, or perhaps have a certain level of power over the house, seeing as how the house had control of the money, however, you have to admit that the whole ratifying of the constitution was a big deal to them. HUGE! I believe that THAT was as big a reason for them initially setting it up so that senators were elected for 6 year terms as a way to keep the like minded souls around and committed to the cause more so than as it was "claimed" to be over see'er of the House.
John Adams wrote extensively about his concerns of being able to keep "like minded spirits" together long enough to ever even reach the day that any form of a constitution could be ratified. A great portion of his day was spent praying about it. I think that was as big of a deal to each of them as was anything else. For the day it (the ratification) came to pass, it is written that they stood "weeping" in wonderous joy. They were truely "shocked" that it had indeed happened.
But as for our system being better for the way it is now. I couldn't disagree more. It lends itself much more easily to corruption, pandering to constituents, and ultimately chronyism.
As for the womens voting thing, I have one thing to say, "Prohibition"....:rolleyes:
Most of us seem to forget that the founders of this nation never seem to have anticpated career politicians. Men who never intended to leave office once they were elected. This would have been unthinkable to most of our ancestors.
As far as the extra three days go, I have been a Voting Assistance Officer. There are limits to what you can do.
You have to request the ballot by a form from your home of record. Then they mail the absentee voting packet to you. Mail to the hinterlands of Afghanistan is slow. I saw my mail taking as much as ten days to get from CONUS to the APO at Bagram AB, the main port of entry into AFG. Ten days (or more) for the request to get to the voting official.
The states frequently are late having the ballots printed and getting them out. Then they are delivered via the APO system. One week to prepare your voting packet and to put it in the mail system. Ten more days to deliver it to the main bases in Afghanistan.
We currently have guys scattered across Afghanistan, significant percentages of which are in groups of twelve men or less, living in mud huts with the locals.
These guys are not resupplied by road. Most of their resupply is kicked to them by parachute from an aircraft. Occasionally a rotary wing will arrive and take mail out, but they may go for a month or more without being able to get anything out. Call it a month, for argument's sake.
Once they are completed and notarized, they have to be picked up and put back in the APO system for return to the voting officials. Could be ten days or more to get them back home.
That totals potentially as much as sixty days or eight and a half weeks from the time the ballot is requested till it is back home for counting. And it is going to be closely scrutinized by Democratic election officials for any error that could invalidate it.
I seriously doubt that anyone residing in the 48 lower states has to deal with anything like those delays.
Those people who sat on their asses and failed to get to the polls for early voting for 27 days are hardly being disenfranchised by having to wait three more days till election day itself to vote.
Just an old soldier's opinion, YMMV.
TR
And this is more of the rule than the exception I think Reaper....that was my whole point. It isn't as easy as the reg would make it seem. Then again, is it ever? I remember what it was like, it doesn't effect me now. But it does those that are scattered to the four winds. And this day in time, with next to 0 support from this administration, and to know that it is actually trying to keep your vote from even being counted? That has to hit you in the gut. SMH
I just think that as a soldier, marine, sailor or airman that is volunteering to lay life and limb on the line, they deserve a little extra. Extra pay, extra benefits, extra time to vote, extra whisky, extra.........etc. They deserve more of everything IMHO.