Ohio Republican Radicalism, Blatant Efforts To Suppress Voting Rights, May Change State Election Balance

Posted on February 14, 2012 by Mike Bock

The wheels of justice grind slowly, but exceedingly fine.

The foundation for justice in a democracy is free and fair elections. Ohio Republican efforts to suppress voting rights, along with the rest of their radical agenda, I’m thinking, shows the gang in Columbus has gone too far and this coming election, even gerrymandered districts may send non-Republicans to the Ohio House and Senate.

Last week federal judge, Susan J. Dlott, in the Hunter v Hamilton County Board of Elections case, ruled in favor of election justice and ordered the Hamilton County Board of Elections to count all of the provisional ballots that were cast in the right location but the wrong precinct for the juvenile court judge race in 2010.The ruling will add over 300 votes to the tally, in a race that where over 200,000 votes were cast. The decision may overturn the results of the election. As it stands now, before these additional votes are counted, Republican John Williams has 23 votes more than Democrat Tracie Hunter.

Judge Dlott found that the Board violated right to equal protection and due process and rejected all of the defenses posed by the Board in her 93 page opinion. The case was tried over three weeks in July and August of 2011.

Judge Dlott ruled that the Board of Elections violated the voters’ constitutional rights when it decided to count some provisional ballots but discard others based solely on the location of where they were cast. She indicated that that Ohio’s Republican designed “wrong-precinct” law is unconstitutional. Dlott wrote:

“Ohio’s precinct-based voting system that delegates to poll workers the duty to ensure that voters are directed to the correct precinct but which provides that provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct shall not be counted under any circumstance, even where the ballot is miscast due to poll-worker error, is fundamentally unfair and abrogates the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of due process of law.”

But the court could not find Ohio’s law unconstitutional without an appropriate due process challenge, and as a result of Dlott ruling, such a challenge has now been made to the Ohio Attorney General. At the same time, in response to Dlott’s ruling, the Republicans on the Hamilton County Board of Elections voted to appeal her decision all the way to The Supreme Court.

Every election in Ohio, thousands of perfectly good ballots, mostly from the poor, are trashed because they fail to meet the technical requirements of Ohio Law. Ohio’s crazy election laws, it seems, are designed to unjustly disenfranchise voters.

One reason I am an enthusiastic supporter of Caroline Gentry, the Democratic candidate for the Ohio House in the district where I live, OHD-41, is the fact that, educated as a Yale Law School attorney, she has donated many pro bono hours working for voter protection. Caroline recently received the Lloyd O’Hara Public Interest Law Award. Her citation reads in part:

“Caroline served as lead counsel in Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless (NEOCH) v Blackwell, a pro bono case that helped to change and clarify Ohio’s voter-identification requirements for the November 2006 general election dn Ohio’s provisional ballot rules for the November 2008 general election. … Caroline’s work on behalf of disadvantaged people who otherwise might be deprived of their voting rights exemplifies the spirit of Lloyd H. O’Hara who was a champion of the poor and disadvantaged.”

The citation also notes that Caroline helped litigate the enforcement of the NEOCH ruling as part of the Hunter v Hamilton County Board of Elections case, just ruled on by Judge Dlott.

The Republican effort to suppress voting rights may become a big issue in this campaign. The Republican legislation, House Bill 194, screams injustice. Many habitual Republican voters in gerrymandered districts may see the unfair suppression of voting by the 129th Assembly as something that they cannot support.

HB194 limits early voting and, most outrageously, prohibits poll workers from helping voters to find their correct precinct. I know, it sounds so absurd as to be a joke. It’s amazing that the anti-democratic Republican majority has the audacity to so clearly show their hand, and enact a law that prohibits poll workers from helping citizens so their votes can be counted.  (Bryan, see comments below, shows that this sentence is incorrect. HB194 does not prohibit poll workers from helping citizens, it relieves them of any responsibility for doing so.)

I’ve not heard a Republican defense of HB194 and, recently , in response to over 300,000 Ohioans signing a petition to put a repeal referendum on the November ballot, Republican Secretary of State, John Husted, urged the Assembly to repeal the legislation saying publicly, to the effect, “Gee, maybe this bill isn’t such a good idea, after all.”

HB194, of course, is just part of the radical Ohio Republican agenda.

The Ohio Republicans in power, traditionally, have been so secure in their “safe” gerrymandered districts that they have felt a license to advance whatever legislation they wanted. Ohio’s 2005 Tax Reduction Law, for example, was anti-progressive, a give away to corporations and the wealthy, and resulted in a $2.6 billion annual revenue shortfall to the state budget.

Under Kasich, this license, this sense of entitlement, to exercise right wing ideology, has been pushed to new levels of arrogance. Taft Republicans, unlike Kasich et al, regardless of their complete control of the state government,

  • did not attempt to curtail collective bargaining for public employees,
  • nor sell the state prisons and state turnpike,
  • nor cut down the trees and drill for oil in the state parks,
  • nor take tax money from public local schools and give to religious private schools.

Taft Republicans did not push legislation so “business friendly” as to be dangerously anti-environmental. But Kasich Republicans passed House Bill 231 greatly compromising Lake Erie and its watershed to the point that, amazingly, former Republican governors Bob Taft and George Voinovich protested and pushed Kasich into his first veto. From the Columbus Dispatch:

Kasich was under mounting pressure to veto the bill. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo suggested “potential legal action” on Thursday if Kasich signed it, and The Plain Dealer of Cleveland has editorialized against the measure.

The bill also was opposed by former Republican Govs. Bob Taft and George V. Voinovich, the Ohio Environmental Council, the National Wildlife Federation, the Nature Conservancy, the Alliance for the Great Lakes and past directors of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and Ohio Department of Natural Resources.

But the bill did have the support of business interests – which are typically cozy with Kasich and vice versa – including the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, which hailed the bill as a jobs-friendly proposal that would provide economic certainty about future water resources from the Great Lakes.

“The liberal environmentalists want to misuse the Great Lakes Compact to place unnecessary and expensive hurdles in front of businesses that will seek to take advantage of northern Ohio’s overly abundant natural resource – freshwater – to relocate or expand their water-use-dependent businesses in northern Ohio,” Sen. Timothy J. Grendell, R-Chesterland, wrote in a letter to Kasich yesterday.

With the current Republican corporatists, in charge in Columbus, accusing former Republican governors Bob Taft and George Voinovich as being part of a “liberal environmentalist” cabal, certainly many main stream Republican voters are beginning to wake up and realizing that they no longer can support this group.

There is wake up call after wake up call. The most recent are the comments of Judge Dlott that Republican “wrong precinct” legislation is unconstitutional.

The point is, the Ohio Assembly is now controlled by radical party apparatchiks who feel so entitled to their antidemocratic bias they are well outside of the mainstream — shockingly so. The wheels of justice grind very slowly. Common sense must eventually return to Ohio. I’m thinking our democracy will rouse sufficiently this next election, and respond as it should.

 

Posted in Special Reports | 7 Comments

Democratic Candidates Should Educate Voters About “Republicanism” And Co-Opt The Term “Conservative”

Posted on February 10, 2012 by Mike Bock

It’s amusing to hear Newt Gingrich proclaim that, in the contest for the Republican presidential nomination, he is the “true conservative.”  The Tax Policy Center shows that the Gingrich tax plan would add $1.3 trillion to the U.S. budget deficit each year. True conservatism? For his tax ideas, alone, Gingrich deserves to be laughed off the stage.

George H. Bush in 1980 said Reagan’s “supply side” tax proposals amounted to “voodoo economics.” He had it right. During the Reagan presidency, the national debt tripled — going from one to three trillion dollars.

To be conservative means to believe “there is no such thing as a free lunch.” To be conservative means to be prudent, logical, reality based. It means taking a long term view and making wise plans for a secure future. It means showing a resolve to “conserve” what is important and what is of value.

Gingrich and Republicans want to frame their wacky ideas as “conservative,” but they are not conservative at all. What Gingrich calls “true conservatism” is an ism, all right.  It is a collection of irrational beliefs based on a pretend universe that demagogues like Gingrich use to manipulate the gullible. It is simply wrong to call this ism conservatism. It is “Republicanism.”

George Lakoff states, “At stake is the moral basis of American democracy.” He writes:

“The individual issues are all too real: assaults on unions, public employees, women’s rights, immigrants, the environment, health care, voting rights, food safety, pensions, prenatal care, science, public broadcasting, and on and on.

Budget deficits are a ruse, as we’ve seen in Wisconsin, where the governor turned a surplus into a deficit by providing corporate tax breaks, and then used the deficit as a ploy to break the unions.”

What is astounding is how effective Republicanism propaganda is. There are true believers who actually think Gingrich and other “true conservatives” are wonderfully logical and honestly interested in advancing the general good. Long time Republican, David Frum, asks, When Did the GOP Lose Touch With Reality? He writes: “We used to say ‘You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.’ Now we are all entitled to our own facts, and conservative media use this right to immerse their audience in a total environment of pseudo-facts and pretend information.”

In 2005, the Ohio Republican government passed a big tax cut drastically reducing taxes on corporations and changing the progressivity of the income tax system, and gave the lion’s share of the tax cut to the wealthy, those who least needed to receive it. The tax cuts, phased in over a five year period, reduced revenue to the state by $2.6 billion each year.  There is no way this big change in Ohio’s tax laws could be defended as following “conservative” principles — prudently planning for the future.  It could only be defended by using “pseudo-facts and pretend information.”

It was obvious, to anyone not believing in voodoo, that this tax cut would cause a big gap in the budget. In 2005 Ohio Policy Matters said, “Closer scrutiny reveals that massive cuts in state spending, or alternative tax increases, that will be required to make up for the revenue shortfall of about $2.8 billion in 2010, the fifth and final year of the tax reform plan’s phase out period.”

And so, in 2011, when it came time for the first Kasich budget — Wow. Surprise, surprise — reality slapped us in the face. The state didn’t have enough revenue. Kasich argued that the collective bargaining rights of public sector unions should be gutted via SB-5 because such action would save the state $1.3 billion.

The motive behind pushing SB-5, of course, had nothing to do with conservatism, nothing to do with dealing with the deficit. It was an attempt to advance the ism of the true believers — smaller government, less regulation, free markets — a belief system deemed worthy of fierce loyalty.

But, authentic conservatism has nothing to do with this wacky belief system of Republicanism, but instead is centered on the democratic principles that make this nation exceptional. The first goal of authentic conservatism should be, in Lincoln’s words, to produce a “government of the people, by the people and for the people.”

Why Republicanism rejects authentic conservatism is obvious. A “government of the people” would flatly reject the irresponsible, class warfare strategies that true believers of Republicanism hold dear.

In this campaign season Democratic candidates need to educate voters that “Republicanism” is not conservatism. Democrats should co-opt the word “conservative,” should show that they have ideas that are prudent, reality based, and honor the wisdom of our forefathers. Democrats should speak boldly how “We the People” must work together to “form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

Posted in Special Reports | 7 Comments

Republican Jim Butler, OHD-41, Likes Idea Of “Lincoln Douglas” Debates With Democratic Challenger

Posted on February 6, 2012 by Mike Bock

Jim Butler, Representative for OHD-41. I failed to get a picture today, so I took this from Mr. Butler's web-site.

This is democracy at work. About twelve citizens, out of a possible crowd of 79,000 voters in this district, attended an informal meeting today at the Oakwood Library with Republican Jim Butler, their representative for Ohio House District 41. Butler responded to questions from the entire group for 50 minutes, or so, and afterward, met privately with individuals who chose to do so.

I asked Butler if he would be willing to do “Lincoln Douglas” type debates with his Democratic challenger, Caroline Gentry, and he answered, “Sure.” Wow. Gentry and Butler are both attorneys and both are residents of Oakwood. Butler said he recently had coffee with Gentry and thinks highly of her.

This may be a great year for citizens in OHD-41. Two excellent, articulate candidates, both thoughtful individuals with impressive credentials, both, I believe, well meaning and seeking to do what is best for Ohio, may actually conduct a campaign that will elevate our political discourse and cause thoughtful participation by voters. It would be a great compliment to the citizens of OHD-41 if “Lincoln Douglas” type debates between Gentry and Butler would actually happen.

Butler has been in the Ohio House for one year, appointed to his position by the Republican Party after John Husted was elected Secretary of State and the representative for this district, Peggy Lehner, replaced Husted in the Ohio Senate, leaving her seat in the Ohio House open. This is Butler’s first election.

As I left the meeting today, I praised Butler for his demeanor and openness. Butler, a graduate of the Naval Academy, creates a good rapport with his constituents and shows a positive attitude. It’s just too bad he votes with the Republican caucus.

The meeting started with one member of the group asking Butler to explain his priorities as representative. Butler indicated that he sees his first priority as advancing public policies that will make Ohio more competitive in attracting and growing businesses and growing jobs. He spoke positively about how Ohio’s system has been made more business friendly via the “Jobs Ohio” legislation, and added that he wants to make sure that there are “guard rails” to make sure “Jobs Ohio” works as it was intended to work. He spoke with pride at how Ohio’s $8 billion budget gap was closed without raising taxes, and, how, in fact, because of action of the Assembly, taxes for Ohioans were reduced. He said he particularly was proud that the Assembly voted to end Ohio’s inheritance tax.

In response to my question, Butler said he personally would like to see Ohio follow Indiana’s lead and pass “Right To Work” legislation, but that he agrees with Governor Kasich that the time is not right to pass such legislation now. (At a recent press conference, Kasich said, about “Right to Work,” speaking about the repeal of SB-5, “If you’re going to bring about massive change, that’s going to cause great unrest – I mean, I’ve learned this – is you’ve got to prepare the way.”)

New legislation that Butler hopes the Assembly will agree to pass includes a law he is writing, and will soon present, to empower Ohio prisons to create manufacturing facilities. This new law would allow prisons to employ eligible prisoners, on a voluntary basis, to work for 40 hours each week. Butler says such manufacturing would not compete with American workers, because the prison population would make products that currently are made in foreign countries. Butler says this manufacturing would create profit for the state and would create a savings account for prisoners — money that will be available to them on their release. He proposes that prisoners would work for 25 cents to 50 cents per hour, and says such work would prepare prisoners to reenter society as productive citizens.

Butler said he has refused to sign the Grover Norquist’s “Taxpayer Protection Pledge” to oppose all tax increases, but that about 26 members of the Ohio House have signed the pledge and that Governor Kasich has signed the pledge as well. I’d like to know more about Butler’s thinking about this issue, but didn’t pursue asking a follow-up question.

I asked Butler about his vote, as a member of the House Education Committee, to support legislation (HB136) that would subtract money from public schools and use that money to fund vouchers to pay for private school tuition. Butler said that this legislation is being rewritten and that the new version addresses some objections raised to the original bill. The new version will reduce the number of students who will be eligible to receive such vouchers to only 1% of the student population of any district, will reduce the size of each voucher, and will finance the vouchers with state funds allocated to local schools, not funds generated by local taxes. He said, with the new formula, the new legislation would mean that Oakwood Schools would lose only about $40,000 in revenue each year.

Over 90% of Ohio private schools are religious schools. I told Butler that I was amazed that legislators who consider themselves “conservative” would advance legislation to empower coercive taxation to fund religious education.

He offered a lame excuse, the same excuse offered by the courts who have approved Cleveland’s voucher program, that, in the voucher program, tax money is not paid to religious schools directly, but, instead, is paid to parents of children. Parents, in turn, pay the religious schools. I asked if he had read the mission statement of a private school that clearly reveals that one central purpose of the school is coercive religious indoctrination. I said I was surprised that, as a conservative, he would abandon the constitutional principle of the separation of church and state.

Then, I said, I would get off my soap box.

In my brief private meeting with Butler, I told him about my Deming inspired thoughts that public education needs transformation and that the basis for such transformation is creating a new system — one based on free market and entrepreneurial principles and one based on local control — centered on accomplishing a much more profound aim than what directs the current system. I said the House Education Committee should research how local systems, particularly those now deemed “excellent,” might be incentivized to attempt this hard process of transformation.

Mr. Butler is an engaged listener and had some insightful comments in response to my POV about public education. He promised that sometime soon we would meet again for more discussion.

For the twelve of us in attendance, it was a good meeting.

 

Posted in Special Reports | 8 Comments