Will the Supreme Court's recent decision to uphold a facial challenge to Indiana's law requiring voters to present a picture ID before they vote have any effect on the vote today? And has the Supreme Court, the last line of defense in upholding individual rights, bought into the Republican's most successful voter suppression scheme?  

The Toledo Blade editorialized yesterday that,  "...the GOP's concocted argument that voter ID requirements are necessary to deter the possibility of voter fraud found a simpathetic audience among the justices."

Republican operatives through an organized strategy in 2005, helped Republican leaning state legislatures, as in Ohio, pass into law restrictive ID requirements. Although the Court, in this case, chose not to see this as a burden to certain minorities, the poor, students and elderly voters, others, including the plaintiffs, perceive it as a kind of "poll tax," that even if the ID were free, could cause other burdens (maybe not understood by those more fortunate).

Last Sunday's Dispatch article titled "Ousted," suggects Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner has been heavy handed in her removal or rejection for reappointment of some election officials.  Among the  published list is the former Chair of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections and Chair of the Ohio Republican Party, Robert Bennett, notorious for his role in the Ohio election of 2004, where voter suppression and voting anomalies were evidence of a strong partisan interference to sway the vote.  Keith Cunningham, former Republican member of the Board of Machine Examiners, was another infamous character out of the drama of 2004, who attempted to interfere with the Green Party Recount by not using a random system.

The article claims the former "fair-minded" judge (Brunner) has been accused by a prominent Republican legislator as "injecting a culture of fear and intimidation" into the county BOE's.  It would seem that it is the Dispatch which is injecting fear by their relentless criticisms of Brunner who is just trying to fix the broken system she inherited, including inherently flawed voting machines.

Common Cause/Ohio wants to congratulate Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner for her efforts to "Get it Straight in 2008," at least in Ohio.  She promised to work for open, fair and honest elections, and having implemented one of the most extensive testing programs in the country, she has bravely taken on vendors and election reform activists alike.  Her recommendations released last week brought compliments for her efforts, but also some criticism for the substance.  

Bob Edgar has called for radical change with Common Cause's Fresh Start for Democracy Campaign.  GrannyD, Doris Haddock, veteran champion of election and campaign finance reform, likes to characterize what is needed as a "velvet revolution," a term borrowed from the Ukrainian transformative election of 2004.  

This kind of revolution implies the absence of the weapons of war, but no less the fervor.  Edgar's emphasis on urgency reflects that fervor and the immediacy of the need for change.  He speaks of 2008 being the year in which "we have got a fundamental choice to make."  That choice, to be embraced, has to be predicated on a truthful understanding of what went so terribly wrong and why.  Understanding the past is an important step in formulating enduring change for the future.

A revealing example of the diabolical nature of our democracy's recent decline and the intricate strategies used by those responsible can be examined through the lens of the theft of the 2000 and 2004 elections and is continuing today.

One only needs to be reminded of Orwell's 1984, to begin to understand what is going on in plain sight.  In a recent priceless example to divert attention from the truth, the Cleveland Plain Dealer editorialized on Nov. 24 that:

Last spring Common Cause released a report entitled "Under the Influence."  The study showed how, by making almost $900,000 in political contributions, the Wholesale Beer and Wine Association of Ohio used the state's most recent campaign finance "reform" law, quadrupling contribution limits, to buy influence in the Ohio legislature.

That influence won out again, in late September, when the Association lobbyists were able to cut a deal, behind closed doors, to persuade legislators to put a ban on direct shipments to Ohio consumers from large out of state wineries, convincing legislators they just were trying to protect Ohio's wine industry.

Akron Beacon Journal's Dennis Willard, last Sunday, referred to Ohio's campaign reform efforts as resembling the mythological figure Sisyphus who was condemned to an eternity of doing the meaningless task of rolling a boulder uphill then watching it roll back down again.

This imagery could stem from Ohio Election Commission Chairman Martin Parks' comment to William Todd, the lawyer representing the defendant in the latest campaign finance challenge before the commission, that his organization faces an "uphill climb."

John Fund is a sophisticated journalist, so it surprised me that in his commentary yesterday on Opinion Journal he confuses the issue of "voter fraud," a minute problem, with the more massive problem of "election fraud," which was the actual issue brought before Congress on Jan. 6, 2005 because of the contested Ohio elections.

Although he cites some examples of alleged voter fraud that have come to light recently, I doubt many of those phony registrants were able to actually vote because of the transparency of the system of checks and balances which catches most of the errors in registration before election day.

On the other hand, as he is aware, there was extensive evidence of anomalies from Florida to Ohio and New Mexico in the 2004 election.  But because of the non-transparency of the voting machines and the lack of checks and balances on that system, and because of not-so-subtle voter suppression, we may never know the extent of the criminality in the 2004 election.  However, there are cases still pending in court, that if allowed to go forward, will prove significant fraud in that election.  Who was responsible remains to be seen.

SB 117, Ohio's "state video franchising reform" bill is yet another business friendly scheme borrowed from Michigan.  A previous effort was the successful "buying" of (through illegally funded "issue ads") a business friendly supreme court.  This time telco giants are spending large amounts of money through their phony "astroturf" front groups to advertise and lobby to "buy" legislation favorable to their shareholders, with no regard for their obligation to provide diversity of information and service to all of the people.

SB117 would take away long standing local control of "cable franchises" to establish service standards and provide funding for public, educational and government (PEG) access channels.  Whether communities will retain public access channels will depend upon a "use it or lose it standard," rather than having it available for communities to use when they need it.  Control will now go to the state level Ohio Department of Commerce which promotes commerce not the public interest.  With no oversight these giant corporate interests will be able to redline services, and erode "Home Rule" protections of municipalities.