Former Secretary of State, Jennifer Bruner, speaking at a "Fair Elections Ohio" meeting concerning HB194
Former Secretary of State, Jennifer Bruner, in a recent article criticizes Ohio GOP relentless efforts to suppress Democratic votes in Ohio. She compares GOP trash and burn tactics, since 2000 — “to cut off or diminish the ability to vote of those most vulnerable to disenfranchisement, such as minorities, low-income Americans, single mothers and the like” — with William Tecumseh Sherman’s devastating “march to the sea.”
Bruner writes about the latest GOP vote suppression effort — House Bill 194 — and says this effort is backfiring on the GOP. Over 500,000 signatures were collected to put the repeal of HB194 on the November ballot.
Defenders of HB194 claim that its purpose is to “modernize” voting laws, but Bruner outlines how HB194, in fact, is designed to suppress voting. If HB194 stands, it will:
- Reduce by mail absentee voting to three weeks from five weeks and reduce in-person absentee voting to two weeks.
- Ban in-person absentee voting on Sundays and Saturday afternoons.
- Ban in-person early voting during the last weekend before the election.
- Make it more difficult for the boards of elections to open extra offices in the community to make it more convenient to vote early.
- Stop local Election Boards from sending absentee ballot applications unsolicited to all voters.
- Stop local Elections Boards from paying postage on return absentee ballot requests or on the return of absentee ballots.
- Impose technical reasons not to count votes.
- Order a minimum voting precinct size in cities and villages only.
- Prohibit someone with no ID from having their ballot counted.
- Eliminate the 10-day period after the election to provide missing ID.
- Strike down disclosure rules for corporations participating in campaigns.
Recently, the current Secretary of State, John Husted, in response to the looming referendum, urged the Assembly to repeal HB194 and substitute other legislation. But Bruner is working with a group called “Fair Elections Ohio,” who is saying that the referendum should go forward.
Mike,
After reading all the over the top rhetoric, I failed to see a logical explanation anywhere on how HB194 manages “to cut off or diminish the ability to vote of those most vulnerable to disenfranchisement, such as minorities, low-income Americans, single mothers and the like.”
The discussion at hand seems to be finding the compromise between voter convenience and what is cost effective. Next thing you know, some groups will want gov’t to provide bus tokens or mileage reimbursement to get to the polls.
I’ll directly address three of her points. When you look past the talking points, the items don’t seem so controversial.
– Impose technical reasons not to count votes. – These reasons include, for example, selecting 2 candidates when only one is being elected, voting both yes and no for a levy. Another is both ‘selecting’ a candidate and ‘writing in’ his name. This throws out the vote/votes for those races/issues, but not the entire ballot.
– Prohibit someone with no ID from having their ballot counted. – This point got it wrong. You can already and still be able to vote without an ID by voting provisionally and providing the last 4 of your SSN. Keep in mind that ID can include more than a dozen different things.
– Eliminate the 10-day period after the election to provide missing ID. – You should really call the BOE and ask 1) how many people vote provisionally without ID or last 4 of SSN and then 2) how many have come down to the BOE within 10 days. My guess? 0.
I think conservatives have figured out that as evenly as the country is divided politically, they are not going to win the degree of power they want and think they deserve without creating barriers to the votes of constituencies that disagree with them being cast and counted. Preferably lots of barriers with cumulative effect, but which are deniable by their spokespeople. We have a society where surveillance, storage of personal information and documentation are much more prevalent than they were in the era of poll taxes and similar things which performed this function somewhat crudely in the past. Technology could make voting easier and harder. It is unfortunate that some want to do the lattr when we should be doing the former.
Stan,
What barriers might you be referring to? What poll taxes?