START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
1,189,194 people care about Politics

Supreme Court Protects Early Voting in Ohio

Supreme Court Protects Early Voting in Ohio

The United States Supreme Court refused the Ohio GOP’s request to overturn an appellate court decision that reinstated early voting on the weekend and the Monday prior to the election in the state.

The decision is not a ruling on the merits, which means it does not address the substance of the early voting restrictions. Nor does it guarantee the Court will not take up a challenge to the law later. But for now it means early voting and Republican efforts at voter suppression have been thwarted.

Republicans in the state had tried to change voting rules to make early voting available only for military and overseas voters, but the Obama campaign challenged that move arguing that early voting had to be available to all Ohioans.

It’s hard to see the Court’s refusal to take the case as anything other than a win for Democrats. They have argued that as many as 100,000 people voted during the three days before the 2008 election. And with Ohio’s status as an electoral-college rich swing state in a race as close as this one, every vote literally counts.

But even more important is the fact that voting rights advocates scored another win in the push back against Republican voting restrictions. Republicans banked on restricting access to the polls in a variety of ways and so far most of them have fallen flat. And while there’s still plenty of time for conservatives to try and keep voters home or send them astray the courts, for now at least, are doing their job in keeping the most fundamental of rights available to all Americans.

 

Related Stories:

Tea Party Voting Purges Might Be Criminal

Think Voter ID Is Bad? Meet the Poll Watchers

Court Strikes Part of Arizona’s Voter ID Bill

 

Read more: , , , , ,

Photo from steakpinball via flickr.

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it

26 comments

+ add your own
6:32PM PST on Nov 6, 2012

Thank you for info.

6:31PM PST on Nov 6, 2012

Thank you for info.

4:35PM PDT on Oct 17, 2012

good news

11:53AM PDT on Oct 17, 2012

Good for the SCOTUS. I am beginning to think that John Roberts may actually have some of the guy he was presented to be when nominated in him after all. Had they taken this case, and sided, 5 - 4, with the GOP, we would have eventually gotten rid of them. Long term demographics don't bode well for Republicans, and the backlash from the temporarily disenfranchised would have been horrendous. If you're white, be very glad about this decision. It makes it less likely that we'll be treated to the same tactics when we are in the minority.

9:47AM PDT on Oct 17, 2012

Thanks.

9:19AM PDT on Oct 17, 2012

How about that?

How could anyone object to voting?

Oh...wait.....if someone feels insecure about the OUTCOME of that election, they might try to stop the other side from voting. PITYYYY.

8:35AM PDT on Oct 17, 2012

Good news!

5:45AM PDT on Oct 17, 2012

Thank you for the article...

3:33AM PDT on Oct 17, 2012

Thanks

3:33AM PDT on Oct 17, 2012

thanks for sharing

add your comment



Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

ads keep care2 free

meet our writers

Julie M. Rodriguez Julie M. Rodriguez is an arts, green living, and political writer based in San Mateo, CA. Her work... more
Story idea? Want to blog? Contact the editors!



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.