Important voting rights update in Ohio: for two years, Ohio's SOS has claimed he could not allow online or electronic applications for absentee ballots. Ohio law didn't permit it, he said, insisting he needed legislative approval.
We went to court to show he was wrong...
1/
Several weeks ago, a common pleas court agreed with us, but he (of course) appealed immediately.
This afternoon, we got our ruling on that appeal.
The disappointing news is that we did not get the relief/injunction we were seeking immediately.
The good news? ...
2/
Like the court below, the appeals court agreed that nothing in OH law prevents the acceptance of electronic applications of absentee ballots: "Having reviewed R.C. 3509.03, we find the plain language of the Gen'l Assembly does not prohibit qualified electors from making.."
3/
"... a written absentee ballot application to the county director of elections by email or fax or otherwise.”
It later said again: "Nothing in this determination should be read as limiting the secretary from, in an exercise of his reasonable discretion..."
4/
"...implementing R.C. 3509.03 to permit methods of delivery other than mail or in-person should the circumstances warrant it.”
The court did not agree with our effort to immediately allow such applications to be made, or that LaRose was required to do so, but our core...
5/
...effort was always to make clear that Ohio law currently allows applications to be sent electronically.
For two years, LaRose said he couldn't do so. And for two years, it turns out, he's been wrong.
6/
So as we and others have said all along, there is nothing in Ohio law right now stopping the acceptance of electronic or online applications--the only thing that's been stopping it is LaRose himself.
While we will weigh our short-term options with this case as to relief,...
7/
...clearing this part up is a long-term win for Ohio voters.
Bottom line: it's long past time for LaRose to stop hiding behind phantom laws for his unwillingness to do things. It's time for him to get to work.
END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Not long ago, I described how one of the most respected conservative judges in the nation during my law school days was J. Michael Luttig. Judge Luttig, of the Fourth Circuit, was often on the short list to be a Supreme Court Justice,
1/
and considered a top “feeder” judge to prized Supreme Court clerkships, especially for members of the Federalist Society.
So in recent years, as Judge Luttig has raised alarms about Trump’s excesses, and the fraying of our national rule of law, we should all pay attention.
2/
But he wasn’t the only Fourth Circuit star at the time.
There is another: Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson of the Fourth Circuit—a Reagan appointee—has also been among the most highly regarded conservative jurists in the nation for a generation.
3/
If you’re continuously stunned by the behavior of gerrymandered GOP representatives in the world of Citizens United, don’t be.
Here’s how to think of them:
They are no longer public servants.
Improving public outcomes is not their goal. Nor do they do better in life…
1/
…by serving the public interest.
In fact, if they serve the public interest, they will likely be primaried. And lose.
Think of them as the servants of certain private interests. See that they are in public office to use public power to benefit those private interests.
2/
That’s why public outcomes consistently fall in the places they control (such as gerrymandered red states like Ohio), while certain interests seem to always gain.
When those public outcomes fall, it doesn’t impact them at all.
Two sets of institutions— each central parts of the infrastructure of a functioning democracy—find themselves facing a similar dilemma.
Higher ed institutions, and law firms.
1/
In case people question the centrality of these institutions’ roles in our democracy, know that Trump and Vance fully understand:
That’s why Vance has declared universities and professors the enemy to what he and his allies seek to achieve.
2/
And it’s why Trump has declared war on some law firms—because he knows that, in our system of justice, robust representation of both sides (including the side holding the government or political figures accountable) is essential. Without that balance, the system collapses.
3/
Beyond the egregious security breach involved, the Signal scandal also puts on full display:
1) the appalling dishonesty of these people (lying with gusto even after incriminating evidence is out in the open);
1/
2) their sheer incompetence/arrogance (they essentially invited Goldberg to release the messages with all their trash talk and bald-faced lies);
3) the inability of most GOP legislators to call out anything—
2/
including something this egregious;
4) and the fact that Trump does not appear to be in charge of his own administration, or briefed on their actions, even when it involves the military
3/
I chatted with a PA Dem strategist who wears the opposite of rose-colored glasses about last night’s surprise upset in PA.
He was not involved in the race.
A few quotes:
1/
“[F]rom a ‘sign of the political winds,’ the victory last night was significant for several reasons: first, turnout was quite high for a random March date.
Second, this turf has been Republican since the Civil War…”
2/
“….it does NOT include the city of Lancaster (which is quite blue)—that’s different than some of these “Obama-Trump” regions that may be inclined to switch back — there’s no legacy of Democratic victories in this part of Lancaster County.”
3/