U.S. Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Democrats in Ohio

by Karen Hatter | October 17, 2008 at 09:06 am
217 views | 51 Recommendations | 12 comments

Photos

Obama settles to a 4% lead following Convention Bumps

Obama settles to a 4% lead following Convention Bumps

see larger image

uploaded by politisite

In an MSNBC.com article, titled, High Court Rejects GOP in Ohio Voting Dispute, it states:

The justices overruled a federal appeals court that had ordered Ohio's top elections official to do more to help counties verify voter eligibility.

Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, a Democrat, faced a deadline of Friday to set up a system to provide local officials with names of newly registered voters whose driver's license numbers or Social Security numbers on voter registration forms don't match records in other government databases.

Video available here.

Also at NowPublic:

Supreme Court Sides with Ohio Secretary of State in Voter Match-Up Case

 

 

recommend This comment thread is now closed
0
Karen Hatter

Karen Hatter, thanks for getting this story out so quickly. It will now show up on the home page for four hours. If new developments justify it, I'll renew this flag for another cycle.

Rachel Nixon
Rachel Nixon
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 09:18 on October 17th, 2008

Karen Hatter, good catch. Please keep us posted with more details.

campanaro
campanaro
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 09:31 on October 17th, 2008

Karen Hatter, I like this story. It's good stuff.
ACTUALLY  Great story..
Thanks for this ..
It effects us all.
Wonder if ...The time machine will be done in time :~)
Peace,
campanaro

Amy Judd
Amy Judd
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 10:00 on October 17th, 2008

Karen Hatter, I like this story. It's good stuff.

Good job on getting this up so quickly

Jordan Yerman
Jordan Yerman
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 10:42 on October 17th, 2008

Karen Hatter, I like this story. It's good stuff.

0
handel.steve

Here's the actual ruling:


Cite as: 555 U. S. ____ (2008)
Per Curiam
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 08A332
JENNIFER BRUNNER, OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE
v. OHIO REPUBLICAN PARTY ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR STAY
[October 17, 2008]
PER CURIAM.
On October 9, 2008, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio entered a temporary re-straining order (TRO) directing Jennifer Brunner, theOhio Secretary of State, to update Ohio’s Statewide VoterRegistration Database (SWVRD) to comply with Section303 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), 116 Stat. 1708, 42 U. S. C. §15483(a)(5)(B)(i).* The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied the Secretary’s motion to vacate the TRO. The Secretary has filed an application to stay the TRO with JUSTICE STEVENS as Circuit Justice for the Sixth Circuit, and he has referred the matter to the Court. The Secretary ar-gues both that the District Court had no jurisdiction to enter the TRO and that its ruling on the merits was erro-neous. We express no opinion on the question whether HAVA is being properly implemented. Respondents,however, are not sufficiently likely to prevail on the ques-
——————
*Title 42 U. S. C. §15483(a)(5)(B)(i) (2000 ed., Supp. V) states, inrelevant part:
“The chief State election official and the official responsible for theState motor vehicle authority of a State shall enter into an agreement to match information in the database of the statewide voter registrationsystem with information in the database of the motor vehicle authorityto the extent required to enable each such official to verify the accuracyof the information provided on applications for voter registration.”
2
BRUNNER v. OHIO REPUBLICAN PARTY Per Curiam
tion whether Congress has authorized the District Courtto enforce Section 303 in an action brought by a private litigant to justify the issuance of a TRO. See Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U. S. 273, 283 (2002); Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U. S. 275, 286 (2001). We therefore grantthe application for a stay and vacate the TRO.
It is so ordered.


politisite
politisite
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 12:11 on October 17th, 2008

Karen Hatter, I like this story. It's good stuff.  Thanks also to the writer who added the actual ruling in his/her comments.  The ruling has no real opnion on this issue.  It has made the determination that the last court who ruled in behalf of the Republicans has no jurisdiction on the issue, thus the ruling is not vailid.

0
Karen Hatter

Hi, Al and thanks.

The two page ruling is included in the 'Also at NowPublic:' article linked here. 

master_jim2008
master_jim2008
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 12:08 on October 17th, 2008

Karen Hatter, I like this story. It's good stuff.

Even if a fix is in, this might in some small way make up for the "fix" Bush had in Ohio in 04

0
politisite

The republicans were trying to do something that was no within its rights to do, if you ask me.  The issue is that in order for the court to hear a case, their must be one who has been harmed.  The Republicans only could bring up a potential for harm.  Since the GOP can not produce a harmed voter the case is probably over until after the election. 

RayBanBro66
RayBanBro66
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 13:11 on October 17th, 2008

Karen Hatter, I like this story. It's good stuff. Thanx for being on top of this so early Karen

Rhonda J Mangus
Rhonda J Mangus
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 14:19 on October 17th, 2008

Karen Hatter, I like this story. It's good stuff.

This story was created over 3 months ago, the comment thread is now closed.

 

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from