Does it Really Matter if Either Brunner or Fisher Win?

Okay, so Jennifer Brunner and Lee Fisher want us to think that their election to the United States Senate will make a big difference in our lives. Well, here is a question for them, and for that matter, for the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee: What evidence do we have that it will make any difference whatsoever?

I mean, look at the the situation we are in at the present time. The Dems have a nine vote majority in the Senate, a 78 or 79 vote majority in the United States House of Representatives, and a Democratic President. With all that legislative power, what have they accomplished?

Well, they passed a stimulus bill that probably avoided a second Great Depression. They passed the Lily Ledbetter bill. They passed a budget plan, and that's about it.

Health care reform: not passed
Financial regulatory reform: not passed
Energy bill: not passed

All the above big bills, by the way, passed the House, but either haven't made it out of the Senate, or in the case of health care reform, got passed by both Houses and is now stuck in the House-Senate limbo.

We are told that electing Lee or Jennifer will make everything better. Well, no, it won't. We will still not have 60 votes. We will still have to put up with Leiberman, Nelson, and all the rest of the so-called "moderate Dems." In short, the only thing that will be different is that one of them might be able to call himself or herself an United States Senator.

Well, maybe its just me, but I personally don't care if Lee or Jennifer get to be a United States Senator UNLESS they can get Democratic legislation enacted. If they want my vote, or my money, or my support, then they better start addressing that issue.

Tell Us Who You Are Backing for United States Senate

We are taking a completely unscientific poll as to who our readers are supporting for the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate seat being vacated by George Voinovich. Tell us if you are supporting Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher or Sec. of State Jennifer Brunner. You can take the poll by clicking on the answer in the box on the right hand side of this page. You can also leave us a comment on why you are supporting one or the other.

The Legacy of Ken Blackwell

A fact that most journalists don't write or talk about is that George W. Bush was elected president because of controversial elections in two states: Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004. In both states, partisan Secretaries of State used their position to help Bush. In Florida it was Kathrine Harris and in Ohio it was Ken Blackwell.

Recently a reader sent us a link to an article that appeared on the website Truthout written by Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman. Firtakis and Wasserman, who write for a blog called The Free Press, have been talking about what happened in Ohio in 2004 for the last four years.

The article talks about the recently announced victory of Mary Jo Kilroy in Ohio's 15TH congressional district. This is a quote from the article:

Mary Jo Kilroy of Columbus will be the first Democrat to represent any part of Franklin County in Congress since 1982, and the first to represent her 15th Congressional District since the 1960s.

In 2006 Kilroy barely lost to incumbent Deb Pryce as thousands of contested provisional ballots went uncounted. Under then-Secretary Blackwell, voters in Democratic precincts were routinely challenged on minor details and forced to cast provisional ballots to allegedly be counted at a later time.

But thousands were merely pitched in the trash or otherwise negated. Some 16,000 provisionals and 93,000 machine-rejected ballots have never been counted from a 2004 election decided by an official margin of less than 119,000 votes. Independent observers believe a fair vote count would have given Kilroy her House seat in 2006. Also in that election, e-voting machines had statistically unlikely high rates of undervotes in central city polls.

So what happens when you get rid of Republican hacks like Harris and Blackwell and replace them with less partisan Secretaries of State? Well, not only do Democrats like Kilroy win congressional races, but both Florida and Ohio went for Barack Obama.

Now, obviously, just getting rid of Harris and Blackwell wasn't enough to tip those states to Obama. The horrible economic record of the Republicans as represented by George W. Bush's failed policies was probably the biggest factor in Obama's win. Still, having rabid partisans like Harris and Blackwell out of office certainly helped, especially in Ohio, since we had a relatively close presidential election.

What is also ironic is that when both Harris and Blackwell tried to run for statewide office, they were defeated, Harris for Senator and Blackwell for Governor.
What's also interesting is that after they were both defeated, the Bush Administration didn't find them a cushy government job. In fact, in Harris's case, neither Karl Rove or Jeb Bush would endorse her for the Senate.

The election of Jennifer Brunner was critical for Democrats in 2006 and it will be critical for Democrats in 2008. Brunner will be targeted by the Republicans who don't want to lose control of the State Reapportionment Board and who want to continue to disenfranchise minority and other Democratic leaning voters. All of us who value free and fair elections need to work for Brunner's election.

Bush Asks Justice Department to Look at New Ohio Voters

The Washington Post and the Cleveland Plain Dealer are both reporting that President Bush asked Attorney General Mukasey to review concerns raised by the GOP over approximately 200,000 new voter registrations. This action was taken as a result of a letter that Bush received from the House Minority Leader, John Boehner. Boehner first asked Attorney General Mukasey to take action, but didn't receive a response to that request. He then sent his letter to Bush.

This action may explain why a GOP donor dismissed his lawsuit against Brunner that he had filed in the Ohio Supreme Court. That lawsuit was subject to possible dismissal because he wouldn't have standing to bring such an action against Brunner.
One of the arguments that Secretary of State Brunner raised in Federal Court is that a private person or entity doesn't have standing to raise claims under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). The U.S. Supreme Court apparently agreed with her since it cited cases in its opinion that deal with that issue and since it voted 9-0 not to hear the case. The same argument wouldn't apply to a lawsuit brought against Brunner by the Federal Government.

The issue between Brunner and the GOP deals with the approximately 200,000 voter registrations where the information in the voter database doesn't match the information in databases maintained by the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles or the Social Security Administration. The GOP sees this as evidence of voter fraud. It cites as evidence reports of problems with registrations obtained by ACORN workers. Brunner counters that most discrepancies are caused by typographical errors and other errors made by clerical workers at local Boards of Elections.

Brunner's attorneys point out that the HAVA mandates that no voter can be removed from the voting rolls within 60 days of an election due to computer database mismatches. They could, however, be required to vote provisional ballots. Brunner believes that requiring provisional ballots in such cases carries the potential of such votes not being counted. Additionally, there is the possibility that many Ohioans who registered this year may not vote if they think that their votes won't be counted. One suspects that depressing the turnout is what is behind Bo

Given the track record of Bush's Department of Justice on supposed voter fraud issues, this is not a good thing. One of the many scandals that has rocked the Bush Administration is the firing of nine U.S. Attorneys because they wouldn't bring bogus criminal prosecutions for supposed voter fraud. We don't know whether any of the political appointees who were behind the firing of the U.S. Attorneys are still in office under Mukasey.

On the other hand, we don't know if Mukasey is as much of a political partisan as Gonzales. We don't know if he wants to further sully the reputation of the Department of Justice by ordering the possible disenfranchisment of up to 200,000 voters. We don't know if he wants to be preceived as a partisan hack on his way out the door.

GOP Drops Lawsuit Against Brunner

Yesterday, October 21, 2008, at 7:12 pm the Columbus Dispatch posted a story with the following headline: Voter-registration lawsuit against Brunner is dropped

This is the lede from the article: The Republican fundraising consultant who brought a lawsuit against Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner in the Ohio Supreme Court over verification of new voter registrations has voluntarily dismissed his case.

The article goes on to state that Robert Bennett, Ohio GOP Chair, asked David Myhal, the plaintiff, to drop the lawsuit. Bennett also said that there was a meeting between the attorneys from the Attorney General's office representing and lawyers for the GOP scheduled for Wednesday. Although Bennett is trying to suggest that this meeting is a settlement meeting, a spokesman for Brunner, Jeff Ortega, denied that it was such a meeting.

So,it would seem that the GOP has given up on its attempt to get the courts to order Brunner to do what it wants, although, with these people, you are never sure its over until its over.

Irony in the GOP v. Brunner Legal Battle

Yesterday, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner filed two pleadings in the Ohio Supreme Court. The first was a notice of removal in which she notified the Ohio Supreme Court that she was asking the Federal District Court to take jurisdiction over the lawsuit filed by David Myhal. The second was her answer in the Ohio Supreme Court.

In Brunner's answer is the following, which is rich in irony:

"12. Respondent states that the Relator spelled his name differently in the caption of the complaint as compared to the rest of the complaint. One presumes that this is an innocent typographical error. Respondent, however, is unsure if the actual Relator in this case is "David Mahal" as listed in the caption or "David Myhal" as listed in the body of the complaint. Respondent denies for lack of knowledge the allegations in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint." (Italics in the original.)

It is the italicized part of paragraph 12 of Brunner's answer that is ironic. The GOP is trying to argue that the local Boards of Elections should be notified by Brunner of any mismatches in data with the BMV records or Social Security. Presumably the list of such voters would then be public record. The GOP could then get the names of such voters and use that information to engage in typical GOP voter suppression stuff. (That idea, by the way, isn't original with us. We got it from an article that appeared in AlterNet.)

One of the arguments that Brunner has used against the GOP's request is that a lot of errors in voter databases are unintentional and result not from voters giving inaccurate information, but from typographical and other errors made by Boards of Elections workers. So here we have a typographical error in a complaint filed by a very well known and well regarded Columbus law firm in the Ohio Supreme Court. Filed on behalf of a person who is claiming that mismatches between Ohio election data and data from Ohio's BMV or Social Security Administration could be nefarious. We can only imagine the glee it gave Brunner's attorneys to make that discovery.

Republican U.S. District Court Judge Issued Ruling Against Brunner Without Conducting an Evidentiary Hearing

There will be a lot of stuff written, both pro and con, about what the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals did in its en banc ruling affirming U.S. District Court Judge George Smith's temporary order in Ohio Republican Party v. Jennifer Brunner. The most interesting, though, comes in the dissent written by Judge Helene White. Here is her dissent:

HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge, dissenting.

I am not prepared to challenge the motivations of the parties, the district court,or my colleagues. I dissent because I find the record made in the district court wholly inadequate to support the district court’s TRO. In a fraction of the time spent by all in pursuing, opposing and ruling on plaintiffs’ petitions, the district court could,and should, have conducted an evidentiary hearing enabling the parties to develop the factual predicates of their arguments.

The judges of this court have been forced to opt for one or the other version of the facts, or to defer to the district court’s conclusions, without record support. The affidavits and arguments submitted below are inadequate to establish either that defendant failed to comply with Help America Vote Act (HAVA), or that plaintiffs or the public will suffer irreparable harm unless defendant is compelled to develop a program that enables county election officials to avoid having to access voter verification information by checking a voter it seeks to verify in the database. I note that it appears that the county boards of elections are the entities responsible for entering the new voter registration information in the system in the first place. Nor does the record show that ineligible votes will actually be cast and counted for failure of defendant to create the software ordered by the court.

In sum, notwithstanding the exigencies involved, the court should have put plaintiffs to their proofs. I am aware of no case law that supports that a district court has authority, even in cases of emergency, to forego the development of an adequate factual record and grant relief based upon speculation, or that this court is obliged to defer to that speculation. To the extent the court’s decision was based on affidavits, they were insufficient to support the court’s conclusions. I am
unable to agree with the majority on this record that defendant has failed to comply with HAVA,or that plaintiffs or the public will suffer irreparable harm.

Apparently, judging from Judge White's dissent, Judge Smith issued his order without taking any evidence, but relying instead on affidavits and other information. So here we have a Federal Judge issuing an order that could jeopardize the votes of up to 200,000 Ohioans, and he doesn't take the time to conduct a hearing? What the hell is that about?

This is what we think that Republicans are trying to do: They generate news stories about supposed "fraudulent" schemes involving voting by demographic groups that lean Democratic and then use those news stories to justify Federal court action by Republican appointed judges. All without having to conduct evidentiary hearings.

If Barack Obama wins the presidency, which we think he will, the Democrats ought to think about passing a law that requires judges to actually hold evidentiary hearings before issuing rulings that could prevent people from voting. It seems to us that it is the least a judge could do.

Bad News for Ohio GOP & McCain

This was the headline on an article on Cleveland.com that also appeared in the print edition of the Cleveland Plain Dealer:



It gets worse. This guy is no longer Ohio Secretary of State:














Instead of the GOP's man Kenny, the McCain campaign will have to deal with her:









Let's see how they like them apples.

Secretary of State Brunner has Voters' Backs

Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner issued a directive to all 88 county boards of elections in Ohio regarding diaqualification of voters. Over the last week there has been a lot of worry among Democrats that up hundreds of thousands of voters could find their eligibility to vote challenged under a section of Ohio law.

In 2006, the Ohio General Assembly passed a law that requires all local board of elections to send out a notice to all registered voters 60 days prior to the November election. The notice cannot be forwarded. The fear was that if the notices came back, then GOP operatives could challenge these voters when they showed up to vote and require them to vote a provisional ballot. Many Democrats and others saw this as a potential GOP "vote caging" operation.

This is how Brunner's office described the potential effect of the notice in its media release on her directive:

Facts about the 60-day notice of election:

Under Ohio law, county boards of elections must mail a nonforwardable “notice of election” 60 days before November 4, 2008, that is, on September 5, 2008. This mailing is required to be sent today, the day Brunner has released her directive to boards of elections. If the notice is returned for any reason, boards must note this fact in the poll book or on poll lists and require a voter to prove with ID or other information that he or she is qualified to vote a regular ballot. Otherwise, such a voter must vote provisionally placing the right to have that ballot counted in jeopardy.

Since the 60-day notice is not forwardable, the notice may be returned for simple and irrelevant reasons like a hold on a voter’s mail during a vacation; a data entry error at the board of elections; or a mail delivery error.

Brunner's directive to the local BOEs spells out that such challenges are not to be honored. Her directive is based both on the Federal National Voter Registration Act, (NVRA), and the Due Process Clause of the United States and Ohio Constitutions.

This is just another example of the big difference in having Jennifer Brunner as Secretary of State compared to some hack Republican or conservative ideologue like Kenneth Blackwell. Indeed, a fact that few in the media have bothered to comment on is that this is the first presidential election since 1988 in which the Secretary of State for Ohio is a Democrat. In a very close election, as this one is shaping up to be, that is a very big deal.

Brunner Kicks So-Called "Independent" Candidates Off Ballot

Recent actions by Jennifer Brunner show what a difference having a Democratic Secretary of State makes as opposed to having Ken Blackwell. The Akron Beacon Journal's website, www.ohio.com, reported in an entry dated October 5, 2007, that Brunner broke a 2-2 tie on the Summit County Elections Board by ruling that independent candidates, who had ties to the Summit County Republican Party, couldn't appear on the November ballot.

Alex Arshinkoff, the Summit County GOP Chair, was suspected of getting people to run as independents to help GOP candidates defeat Democrats in races for Clerk of Court for the Cuyahoga Falls Municipal Court and Barberton Law Director. With regard to the Clerk's race, Brunner ruled that the candidates had handed in their petitions late. With regard to the Barberton Law Director's race, Brunner ruled that Edna Boyle, a Republican who was defeated in the 2006 primary for Ninth District Court of Appeals Judge, wasn't really an independent. All in all a very neat illustration of what a difference a Democratic SOS can make in Ohio politics.

Cleveland PD Articles on Lawsuit Over Strickland's Veto

On Tuesday, May 1, the Ohio Supreme Court will hear the lawsuit involving Gov. Strickland's veto of the bill that Taft refused to sign and that capped punitive damages in consumer cases. Cleveland Plain Dealer Business columnist Sheryl Harris has a good article about this case in Sunday's Plain Dealer. You can read her story here. She had a recap of the bill's legal history here. Here she explains who is backing the Governor and who is backing the General Assembly. In this sidebar she sets forth the text from the Ohio Constitution that is at the center of the dispute.

If you are looking for a good explanation of what is involved in this lawsuit and why it is important these stories are ideal. What is most interesting is the groups backing the two sides in this lawsuit, Secretary of State Brunner and the Ohio General Assembly.

Groups backing the GOP led General Assembly include the following:
Ohio Automobile Dealers Association
Ohio Business Roundtable
Ohio Chamber of Commerce
Ohio Chemistry Technology Council
Ohio Council of Retail Merchants
Ohio Manufacturers' Association

Groups backing Ohio Secretary of State Brunner include the following:
AARP
Advocates for Basic Legal Equality and Legal Aid of Western Ohio
Cleveland Tenants Organization
Coalition on Homelessness and Housing
Cuyahoga County Foreclosure Prevention Program
Equal Justice Foundation
Gov. Ted Strickland
Ohio State Legal Services Association
Legal Aid Society of Cleveland
Legal Aid Society of Columbus
Miami Valley Fair Housing Center
National Association of Consumer Advocates
Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless
Toledo Fair Housing Center
18 constitutional law professors from state and private colleges

We will leave it to you to decide which groups represent the interests of Ohio consumers and ordinary citizens.

Legal Basis for Brunner Move to Fire Cuyahoga County BOE

Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner demanded today, 3.19.2007, that all four members of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections step down. If they don't resign voluntarily, she plans to replace them on Wednesday. The two Republicans, including Bob Bennett, who is also the Ohio GOP Chair, are vowing to fight Brunner's action. The two Democrats seem to be undecided as to whether they will resign. (If you click on the link in this entry's title you can read the PD story about Brunner's action.)

Brunner is apparently relying on the following section of the Ohio Revised Code:

§ 3501.16. Removal or suspension from office

The secretary of state may summarily remove or suspend any member of a board of elections, or the director, deputy director, or any other employee of the board, for neglect of duty, malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance in office, for any willful violation of Title XXXV [35] of the Revised Code, or for any other good and sufficient cause. Except as otherwise provided in section 3501.161 [3501.16.1] of the Revised Code, vacancies in the office of chairperson, director, or deputy director shall be filled in the same manner as original selections are made, from persons belonging to the same political party as that to which the outgoing officer belonged. If those vacancies cannot be filled in that manner, they shall be filled by the secretary of state.

We say "apparently" because the articles we have seen so far don't cite to what section of the Ohio Revised Code she is using to take this bold step. It will be interesting to see what happens next. Board of Elections are used to pretty much running their own show and this action by Brunner certainly puts BOE members on notice that she intends to aggressively oversee their performance in holding elections.

Columbus Dispatch: GOP Sued Brunner, not Strickland in Veto Lawsuit

According to this article in the Columbus Dispatch, http://www.dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/2007/02/03/20070203-A1-05.html, the leaders of the General Assembly sued Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner and not Governor Strickland over his first day veto of the bill limiting damages in consumer lawsuits. This is a very interesting point that a lot of news organizations are not picking up on in their stories. Our guess is that they are suing Brunner because it is an easier lawsuit legally and because Strickland's popularity is high enough that the GOP doesn't want to go toe to toe with him over this issue. Another reason may be that Jon Husted, the House Speaker, reportedly has state office ambitions and maybe he wants to run against Brunner.

Secretary of State Brunner Has New Ideas for Ohio Elections

The Columbus Dispatch reported that Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner set forth several new proposals at the winter meeting of Ohio election officials in Columbus. One was to have conduct elections totally by mail if only issues are on the ballot. Another was to try to select poll workers like we do jurors and allow poll workers to work 8 hour shifts. Brunner also announced plans to retest all Ohio voting systems to make sure that voting machines are working correctly. Finally, she announced that she and her staff would not be attending receptions at the meeting that were sponsored by companies that sell electronic voting machines such as Diebold.

After putting up with Ken Blackwell's machinations as Secretary of State, it is refreshing to see someone like Brunner in that office. Brunner is trying to make the office work for Ohio's voters. Blackwell tried to make the office into a subsidary of the Ohio GUP. We especially like her policy not to attend receptions sponsored by companies like Diebold. Brunner is sending a message that she is in charge of the office and that policy reinforces that message.

Ken Blackwell: A Sore Loser Until the Bitter End

Ken Blackwell, the outgoing Secretary of State, has decided that he will not turn over the keys to his office until 12:01 am on Monday, January 8, 2007. Since the election he has refused to meet with Jennifer Brunner, the incoming Secretary of State. We have always wondered whether Republicans are worse losers than they are winners. As far as Blackwell is concerned, we know the answer, he is equally obnoxious in defeat as in victory.

You have to wonder where this kind of attitude comes from, since it is shown by a lot of Republicans. Basically we think that it stems from a belief that they are better than others, and that kind of mindset cannot handle voter rejection. We believe that they are overlooking the opportunity their recent state-wide defeats have given them. Now they will be able to put into practice their belief that the private market is better at economic evaluation than government. They will now have a chance to show everyone just what the private market thinks of their abilities. On second thought, maybe that is exactly what they are afraid of and could explain why they are so bitter about losing power.
___________________________________________________________________
Click on the title of this entry to read a news article on the transition of power in various state offices.