According to this news story, Ohio’s Secretary of State has promulgated a directive that requires voters who are voting in a different party’s primary this year, relative to 2008, to sign pledges of support for the party whose primary ballot that are requesting.
Ohio does not ask voters to choose a party, when they fill out a voter registration form. One would think that a state that does not have registration by party would be more relaxed about which party’s primary ballot a primary voter chooses.
Some years ago, a Democratic candidate for state court judge in Ohio sued, because she said elections officials were letting people who had voted in the Republican primary in the past choose a Democratic primary ballot currently. But, she lost. The Ohio courts said elections officials have no duty to try to stop voters from choosing a different party’s primary ballot. The Secretary of State’s directive can properly be criticized as changing the rules just before the upcoming May 2010 primary. Thanks to ThirdPartyDaily for the link.
Any pledges to New Age Stalin or Hitler clones ???
One more constitutional provision to deal with the EVIL manipulative party hacks — There shall be NO change in election laws for X days before an election.
Solve for X.
The directive actually applies to absentee ballots, and requires county election officials to include a form that challenges a voter who seeks to vote in a major party opposite of that he has voted in the past.
The law says that it is the “duty” of an election official to challenge a voter who he “doubts” is legally entitled to vote at an election. Grounds include that a person is not a qualified voter; is being bribed; or is not affiliated with a party whose primary ballot he attempts to vote based on his previous voting history.
In the case of a question of party affiliation, the challenge can be resolved if the voter makes a statement under penalty of election falsification (a 5th degree felony) that he desires to affiliate with and supports the political principles of the party whose primary who he wishes to vote in.
In the case of a newly registered voter, or a voter who didn’t vote in the previous primary, there is no grounds for doubting that a voter is affiliated with a party whose ballot he seeks to vote. From the article, it appears that different counties have taken a different approach to voters who seek to vote in the opposite primary of what they did two years previously. In some cases, a statement that “I want to vote in the Republican (Democratic) primary” apparently erased any doubt about the desired affiliation; and in other cases such voters were always challenged.
Brunner’s directive takes an aggressive approach and says that election officials are required to challenge any voter who seeks to vote in the primary
opposite of what they had two years ago.
In the case of an absentee voter the challenge has to be made by mail. The new directive requires that along with the absentee ballot and instructions and envelopes that there also be a new form 10-Z that challenges a voter’s right to vote in the primary.
The form is titled:
“PERSON VOTING BY ABSENT VOTER’S BALLOT STATEMENT OF PERSON CHALLENGED AS TO PARTY AFFILIATION (Primary Election) R.C. 3509.06(D), 3513.19, .20”
And concludes with the headlined admonition:
“WHOEVER COMMITS ELECTION FALSIFICATION IS GUILTY OF A FELONY OF THE FIFTH DEGREE”
Obviously Ohio is not a pre-clearance jurisdiction under the VRA, and Brunner is not a Republican, or there would be cries of voter intimidation and a demand for federal marshals.
Any lie detector tests to find those lying disloyal folks ???
This is baffling. I can understand a requirement that a particular voter cannot vote in primaries for both republican and democratic candidates. But any voter must be able to vote for ANY party they choose in each election. If I cannot change party affiliations at ANY time this is not a free country. And if I choose to forego a vote for a democrat in order to vote for a republican in a primary WHATEVER my reasons they cannot legislate against it or my country is not what I thought it was. Are they trying to be the thought police? If I vote Democrat I give up the opportunity to vote Republican in a primary. That I can see. That solves the problem. But if it isn’t my choice then this isn’t a democracy the way I understood it. What is going on here? I did vote in the Republican primary for McCain because I knew Bush was unthinkable. Are you telling me that was wrong? That I must vote for McCain because I like him more? This is beyond absurd. But so is my country at this point.