« Someone Said Something About Banality? | Main | The 'Nice' ICE? [Van Nuys ICE Raid] »
9 de Marzo, 2008
Felons for Clinton?
Categorized under Ley , Política Estados Unidos , Race for '08 | Tags: Clinton, Democrats, Obama, Ohio, Republicans
I KNOW SOME Democrats who get upset about appeal that Obama has for Independents and even some Republicans. One of the choices of attack they wield against the idea of his run is that "it should be Democrats who choose the Democratic nominee."
Without resorting to more loaded adjectives, is "too clever by half" too strong a phrase or too bland of one for the conflating of the conversion of a person convinced by a politicians' platform to change parties in order to have them elected with "Independents/Republicans choosing our nominee"? If there's a better phrase, I'm okay with using it. But I think it is not sound reasoning at the very least. If a person aligns with a Democratic candidate, and to see that person's politics and policies be enacted, changes parties...I'm pretty sure that's acceptable to most. Right? That's within the rules of the game, as far as I know.
Regardless, I wonder how people with those aforementioned objections will feel about this:
Butler County in southwest Ohio is the most Republican county of all Ohio's 88 counties. 26 county offices and none of them are held by Democrats. Yet, the strangest thing happened on Tuesday... the Butler County Democratic Party increased in registered members by over 200% and now has more registered members than the Republican Party. Hillary Clinton won this county in the Democratic Primary by 10%.Barack Obama won only 5 out of 88 counties in Ohio and those counties were the ones where Democrats are abundant. Yet Hillary Clinton won the state by only 10%. I have been told directly by Republicans here in Ohio that they voted for Hillary for the express purpose to either cause a split convention or to get her nominated because they know she is the weakest candidate against John McCain. To a person they will all be returning to voting Republican in the general election. To a judge monitoring the elections, Marilyn Hatfield, numerous Republicans taking a Democratic ballot said they were voting for Hillary "because of that thing Rush said." (Source: Hamilton Journal News, 3-6-08)
According to the News Vine article, some of the Republicans who crossed over purely to give Senator Clinton the Ohio win have been bragging about it online!
But it turns out that might be a bad idea.
The law in Ohio, the Ohio Revised Code, is very clear on what Republicans have done. ORC 3513.20 says:Before any challenged person shall be allowed to vote at a primary election , the person shall make a statement, under penalty of election falsification, before one of the precinct officials, blanks for which shall be furnished by the board of elections, giving name, age, residence, length of residence in the precinct, county, and state; stating that the person desires to be affiliated with and supports the principles of the political party whose ballot the person desires to vote; and giving all other facts necessary to determine whether the person is entitled to vote in that primary election. The statement shall be returned to the office of the board with the pollbooks and tally sheets . . . .
3599.36 Election falsification reads:No person, either orally or in writing, on oath lawfully administered or in a statement made under penalty of election falsification, shall knowingly state a falsehood as to a material matter relating to an election in a proceeding before a court, tribunal, or election official, or in a matter in relation to which an oath or statement under penalty of election falsification is authorized by law, including a statement required for verifying or filing any declaration of candidacy, declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate, nominating petition, or other petition presented to or filed with the secretary of state, a board of elections, or any other public office for the purpose of becoming a candidate for any elective office, including the office of a political party, for the purpose of submitting a question or issue to the electors at an election, or for the purpose of forming a political party.
Whoever violates this section is guilty of election falsification, a felony of the fifth degree. A person that commits election falsification can face six to twelve months in prison as well as a $2,500 fine according to Ohio sentencing guidelines
(Source: http://www.clelaw.lib.oh.us/Public/Misc/FAQs/Sentencing.html)
Interesante.
Regardless, I think it's clear that voting for someone running on the opposite ticket because you find their platform desirable and want to see them elected ultimately is not only legal under the quoted terms (according to the logic of the linked article, I am by no means a legal expert), but also completely different ethically than the gaming of the system in order to select the candidate you feel your true party will find easiest to beat, and in doing so, falsely present your actual intention.
But hey. Maybe "That's Just Politics."
UPDATE: 16,000 Republicans in Cuyahoga crossed over and voted Democratic in primary
| 
| 
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Comentarios (4)
RC dijo:
My son and his wife are in Ohio and voted there for _______. I'll send them this and see what they say.
Palabras por RC spat forth on el 9 de Marzo, 2008 at 02:50 PM
M
dijo:
This is the part of the post where there's a massive round-up of Republicans in Ohio who are then sent to prison and held until November 7th, right?
Palabras por M
spat forth on el 9 de Marzo, 2008 at 04:34 PM
SOB231 dijo:
Lemmings to the end.
Palabras por SOB231 spat forth on el 10 de Marzo, 2008 at 10:11 AM
jon dijo:
Kim Zetter's Did Limbaugh's Crossover Voters Break Ohio Law? on Wired's THREAT LEVEL blog looks the details of the election falsification law.
Kim quotes Dan Tokaji, a law professor at Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law who specializes in election law, as saying it's debatable whether Ohio's law is enforceable and says that even if it is enforceable the likelihood that anyone would be prosecuted under it is "infinitesimally small." He notes that many poll workers didn't have voters sign an affidavit. [Interestingly, a presiding judge who commented on Scott Isaacs' column thread bemoaned the lack of an affidavit -- inconsistent instructions to poll workers?] And
Even then, he thinks the likelihood that they would be prosecuted is close to nil. We shall see ... it's not clear whether Dan had read the the Cincinnati Enquirer pre-election article with the Republican prosecutor saying that if the Board of Elections referred an issue to them, prosecution was substantially more likely if it like it was a part of an organized effort to tamper with the election -- or the Cleveland Plain Dealer article with multiple voters admitting to lying and a Board of Elections member saying he wanted to look into it more.
jon
Palabras por jon spat forth on el 13 de Marzo, 2008 at 09:05 AM