New directives from the Secretary of State, court challenges, District Court opinions overturned by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals....  What is a poor county board of elections official to do?

It all started when the legislature hurried through HB 3, a more than 300 page bill, overhauling our elections systems to counter the bogus claim of massive "voter fraud" in Ohio. Virtually all of the testimony in committee hearings by interested parties and good government groups, including Common Cause/Ohio, warned of the dangers of passing this legislation without more time and careful scrutiny.  There was also a great deal of testimony from the same groups about the dire consequences of implementing new ID requirements for voting, and about how it would disenfranchise a certain group of voters, which includes seniors, the poor and student populations, especially when there was no proof of any real problem with "voter fraud."

The bill was passed along party lines with only one Republican voting no, and with no attention paid to our dire predictions about the new ID requirements.  Here we are a little over a week before the election, and the legality of these requirements is still in question.  After the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, Sunday, blocked an emergency order issued by Judge Marbley of the U.S. District Court in Columbus, on Thursday, to set aside ID requirements for absentee voters, Subodh Chandra, the attorney for the plaintiffs, stated to the press:  "We hope that the 6th Circuit is not taking the position that one must permit an election to be a train wreck before one tries to stop the wreck."

Another victory in support of free and fair elections for Ohio voters!   U.S. District Court Judge Algenon Marbley ordered Ohio county boards of elections to preserve the ballots of the 2004 election to be saved until further notice.  Is the tide beginning to turn in Ohio?  Let's hope so.  However, voters still face the huge hurdle of HB 3's new voter ID requirements, which are so confusing and detrimental to the voting process as to be considered a voter suppression strategy by critics.  With two positive court decisions in favor of the public interest, there is a renewed interest in possibly litigating these draconian ID requirements.

More drama surrounding Blackwell's campaign for governor, and the third party ads in support of his candidacy appeared today.  Democrats have brought an action in the state Supreme Court asking that the group sponsoring the ads, Common Sense 2006, be required to disclose its backers, "a case reminiscent of a 2000 battle over ads against one of Ohio's justices." Common Cause/OH and The Alliance for Democracy  brought that suit, which after being litigated for five years in every court, state and federal, finally got a favorable ruling, that the group sponsoring the ads was a PAC, and corporate contributors had to be disclosed.  

On July 6, a coalition consisting of Common Cause Ohio, Project Vote, American Association of People with Disabilities, and others, filed suit in federal court in Cleveland against Ohio House Bill H.B. 3, the Ohio legislature's attempt at election reform. The suit charges that this legislation as structured would have the net effect of deterring and disenfranchising several classes of voters in Ohio. It is the opinion of the leadership of Common Cause Ohio that H.B. 3 is potentially a devastating piece of legislation that could reverse all the voter registration and voter turnout gains over the last eight years. Samuel Gresham of Common Cause Ohio states:

The wording on H.B. 3 is vague and appears open to interpretation. All 8 attempts to contact the Ohio secretary of state's office were unanswered. Read Samuel Gresham's statement here.