| By Dave Harding, ProgressOhio - Nov 20th, 2008 at 7:01 pm EST |
Jeff Ortega, spokesman for Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner issued the following statement in connection with Thursday's federal court ruling:
We are pleased that the court recognizes the clear, consistent guidance Secretary Brunner provided prior to Election Day. These pre-election directives were issued under court order and in keeping with federal and state law. Because of this court decision, the rules issued before the election must be followed in Franklin County.
Background:
Secretary Brunner issued Directives 2008-101 and 2008-103 under court order prior to the November election.
These directives clearly indicate which provisional ballots should be counted.
Included in the group to be counted are ballots cast by Ohioans who are registered to vote, eligible to cast the provisional ballot, and declined to affirm the provisional ballot statement.
Under Ohio law, a person can decline to write anything on the envelope (e.g., affirm the statement) and still have his/her ballot counted (see R.C. 3505.183(B)(1)). The board simply has to be able to determine if the person is registered and eligible. Under Ohio law, poll workers must witness and review all provisional ballots. Therefore, failure to sign or print a name cannot be used to disqualify because the court has ordered provisional ballots cannot be rejected due to poll worker error.All of the voters in this subset of provisional ballots either provided ID on Election Day or provided it within the 10 days after Election Day.
See Also:
Judge Marbley Sides With Secretary Of State In Provisional Ballot Case
Editor's Update: Judge Marbley has issued an injunction on his order until next Friday. This will give the Appeals Court time to weigh in if the Stivers supporters appeal his ruling.
Editor's UPDATE II: Plantiffs have filed the expected Appeal.
The legal documents are here:
Notice of AppealEmergency Motion
Comments are closed for this post.
Absent the injunction, Brunner could have simply cast the tie-breaking vote tomorrow and ended this farce. Damschroder in fact argued that this danger (the SoS voting) was the reason they needed an injunction. Isn't this interference of the court in the executive branch?