AmericanTruckersAtWar

Professional, Polite, Prepared to Kill

Judge rules Ohio homeless voters may list park benches as addresses

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) – A federal judge in Ohio has ruled that counties must allow homeless voters to list park benches and other locations that aren’t buildings as their addresses.

U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus also ruled that provisional ballots can’t be invalidated because of poll worker errors.

Monday’s ruling resolved the final two pieces of a settlement between the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless and Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner.

The coalition agreed to drop a constitutional challenge to Ohio’s voter identification law until after the Nov. 4 election. In return, Brunner and the coalition agreed on procedures to verify provisional ballots across all Ohio counties.

The coalition was concerned that unequal treatment of provisional ballots would disenfranchise some voters.  From the Columbus Dispatch

Advertisements

October 28, 2008 - Posted by | Politics | , , , ,

4 Comments »

  1. […] agree that the homeless must be allowed to vote, that is their Constitutional right.  However, there needs to be a better […]

    Pingback by David’s Blog of Common Sense » Ohio Judge Allows Park Benches for Voters Registration Address | October 28, 2008 | Reply

  2. Has this Judge lost his mind? Did his brain suddenly turn to jelly and ooze out his ears. What’s to stop these homeless people from registering benches in every district in Ohio making them eligible to vote in all of them. Overzealous Obama workers can pick up one person on election day and take them to every polling place they’re registered. Hello Judge!! Do the words “voter fraud” mean anything to you? How about the words “fair election”? How many illegal votes is Obama going to get because of this decision. Is there a Supreme Court appointment waiting for you? I see a recount coming in Ohio followed by an investigation into this highly suspicious decision.

    Comment by Suzanne Grove | October 29, 2008 | Reply

  3. As a veteran, this is the saddest and most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. This is why I served? This judge has obvious fell pray to the politics he should be above. It is sad to think our right to vote and elect an official can be polluted and negated by one man sitting in the right place. It is also ridiculous for this judge not to define conditions of residence – a bench does not constitute residence! Is this judge so ignorant as to put parameters around a decision? A house, rental apartment, post box, a car at a camp ground, these might be a residence. Conversely is a homeless person even a resident? Even the Indians used a tent and were migratory in nature. What an idiot!

    Comment by Steve | October 29, 2008 | Reply

  4. Our founding fathers had it right when they limited the vote to “educated property owners”. Where would we be tody if we still applied this requirement?

    Comment by Dan | November 1, 2008 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: