Same Day Voting: Update

Earlier today, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision (that is the subject of the post immediately below) of District Court Judge George Smith, denying the Ohio Republican Party an injunction that would prevent same day voting. The three-judge panel was comprised of Judge Karen Nelson Moore, Judge Richard Allen Griffin, and Judge Myron Bright, a judge of the Eighth Circuit who was sitting by designation. (A judge from another circuit sitting by designation on a panel is fairly routine.)

The panel had to decide two issues: first, whether to require the Secretary of State to force boards of elections to segregate ballots cast as a result of same-day voting, and second, whether to require the Secretary of State to mandate that boards of elections permit observers to be present during the same-day voting period.

On the first issue, the panel was unanimous: the GOP was deemed not entitled to the relief they sought. Interestingly, the Republicans appear to have shifted their focus once they reached the court of appeals. In the district court, they wanted to enjoin same-day voting altogether; in the Court of Appeals, they merely wanted ballots to be segregated. The Sixth Circuit held that because the relief the GOP now seeks was not presented to the district court, the court of appeals would not grant it.

With respect to the second issue, the panel split 2-1. The majority (Judges Moore and Bright) reversed the district court's decision requiring the permissive presence of observers, holding that no federal law required such a result. (The court explicitly left open the question of whether state law requires boards of elections to be present, as a federal court may not tell a state official how to apply a state law.) Judge Griffin, dissenting in part, would have affirmed the district court.

So judges from both sides of the political spectrum have now agreed (finally, it appears) with Jennifer Brunner that same-day voting is permissible under Ohio law.

For what it's worth, I agree (partially) with Judge Griffin: SOS Brunner should permit observers to be present for the thirty-five days prior to Election Day during which absentee ballots are turned in. (It's not clear to me, though, the basis to conclude that federal law requires this.) It is absolutely essential that the public's confidence in the integrity of our elections is restored, and disallowing observers is entirely contrary to that goal. Remember that because the General Assembly rewrote the election law after 2004, "observers" are not "challengers." Observers have no right to challenge voters or to attempt to intimidate voters. Thus, no harm comes from the transparency that the presence of observers would create, and people on both sides (both Democrats living in counties controlled by Republicans and vice-versa) would be assured of a fair process.

Same-Day Voting Permitted In Ohio

You may recall hearing about a controversy regarding so-called "same-day voting" in Ohio. When the Republican-controlled legislature rewrote our election law, it created a five-day window during which people could both register to vote and cast their absentee ballot. Democratic Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner has interpreted the law to allow people to do both on the same day.

The Ohio GOP disagreed with Brunner, and has filed lawsuits to prevent same-day voting. The courts have now ruled that Brunner is right and the Republicans are wrong.

Yesterday, the Republican justices of the Ohio Supreme Court, by a 4-3 vote, dismissed the lawsuit that sought to prevent same-day voting. Its order is available here. The Republicans also have filed suit in federal court seeking to enjoin same-day voting. United States District Court Judge George Smith (appointed to the bench by Ronald Reagan) has issued an order (available here) deferring to the judgment of the Ohio Supreme Court, but requiring that observors be permitted to be present. His decision has been appealed to the Sixth Circuit, which will almost certainly order expedited briefing and rule quite quickly.

The upshot: if you are not registered to vote, you can both register and cast an absentee ballot on the same day from now through October 6. So can your family, friends, and neighbors. So pass the word and go vote.

The Enquirer's article (albeit with a misleading lede) is here. For up-to-the minute coverage of Ohio election litigation, check the Election Law Blog, based at the Moritz College of Law at The Ohio State University.

CAC Diversity Training Spotlighted

The Cincinnati Contemporary Arts Center was singled out for work done over the sumer on a diversity program. Plans are being put into place to fully implement it in 2009.

NewsAche Blog Is No More

After 2 years of hard critiques of the Cincinnati Enquirer NewsAche signs off along with those leaving the Enquirer because of the buy out options. Often harsh, but consistent, Newsache will be missed. The lingering question is, who was the author? This departure suggests that the author, who is believed to be an Enquirer employee, is one of those leaving the company.

Downtown vs. OTR

If you were buying a condo or loft tomorrow (assuming you could find a bank willing to extend you credit prior to their reception of a 700 billion dollar bribe), where would you buy: Downtown or Over-the-Rhine? What are the advantages and drawbacks to each? If you were renting instead of buying, would your answer change?

The biggest, most obvious difference is probably cost: I expect people are paying less per square foot in OTR than in Downtown.

Obviously, I've chosen to rent downtown (in a building where I pay a shockingly low amount per square foot). Griff and Julie have bought in OTR. When (if) I buy, I'm more likely to buy a house, making either neighborhood an unlikely spot for me (unless I win the lottery--then I'll just buy Parker Flats, tear down a lot of interior walls, and make it my own downtown mansion).

What are your thoughts?

The Banks and Sawyer Point

The Enquirer's article highlighting the groundbreaking Riverfront Park in the midst of the Banks reminded me of a question that's been lingering in the back of my mind: once the new park is completed, what's to become of Sawyer Point? The target date is late 2010.

It seems to me that a lot of the things that currently happen at Sawyer Point may move to Riverfront, particularly as the Banks itself is completed. I would think the City and the County would pressure groups to put events at Riverfront. Party in the Park seems like a likely candidate to move to Riverfront. So, perhaps, do Blues Fest, the Fourth of July celebration, and the Black Family Reunion.

Anyone here privy to whether there's been discussion of how diminished Sawyer Point's role is expected to be in Cincinnati's cultural life post-Riverfront Park?

Parker Flats

I saw a moving truck outside of Parker Flats (the new condo building on the southeast corner of Fourth and Central) on Friday. For a second, I thought maybe the first resident was moving in, but I'm pretty sure it was just some things for the offices.

At any rate, the ownership was feeling sufficiently good about the building's completion that it made a few extra bucks today by opening the garage to Bengals parking.

(No, the link isn't to the official Parker Flats website. 5chw4r7z is just far more interesting than Middle Eart Development could ever be. And besides, he's about to be my across-the-street neighbor; may as well help his hit count.)