News Intelligence Analysis
From the Beacon Journal
Posted on Sat, Apr. 22, 2006
Punch-card Voting is Illegal
in Ohio
Professor: Appellate ruling in Ohio is first in U.S. to say a
state's equipment violates equal protection
By Lisa A. Abraham
Beacon Journal staff writer
With touch-screen and optical-scan voting machines poised to be put to use across Ohio on May 2 -- many for the first time -- a court ruling declaring punch-card voting illegal may not seem like much of a victory.
But the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio was reveling in its success Friday, when a federal appeals court reversed a decision by U.S. District Judge David Dowd in Akron on a case that challenged the legality of punch-card voting.
The 2002 case, which was decided in December 2004, was filed against Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell by the ACLU on behalf of voters in Summit, Hamilton and Montgomery counties.
The suit claimed the use of punch-card voting in some Ohio counties but not in others violated voters' rights to equal protection under the law. The suit also claimed the system violated voters' rights to have their votes counted, and violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by having a larger negative impact onAfrican-American voters.
Ohio State University law professor Dan Tokaji, one of the lawyers who argued the case for the ACLU, said he was pleased with the decision, despite the belief that requirement of the Help America Vote Act to eliminate punch-card voting would make the case moot.
He called the decision a ``landmark.''
``Call me a doubting Thomas, but I'll believe it when I see it,'' Tokaji said of the pending changeover from punch-card voting.
``It's not moot. There's still a gray area there... The government can't always be trusted to do what it's going to do.''
Tokaji said if there are any problems that prevent punch-card systems from being eliminated, this ruling will give the ACLU and voters insurance that the state must get rid of them.
``The even bigger impact is on the state of the law,'' he said. ``This is the first opinion anywhere in the country to say a state's voting equipment violates equal protection.''
James Lee, spokesman for the secretary of state's office, said Blackwell has worked since 2001 to eliminate punch-card voting and twice testified before Congress to help get HAVA adopted.
``On May 2, we will be only one of a handful of states to be in full compliance with the Help America Vote Act,'' Lee said.
He said the secretary of state's office would wait for advice from its lawyers in the attorney general's office on what its next step should be.
At the time the suit was filed in 2002, 69 of Ohio's 88 counties were voting on punch-card systems. All of those systems are to have been replaced for the May 2 election.
Dowd ruled in December 2004 that ``all voters in a county, regardless of race, use the same voting system to cast a ballot, and no one is denied the opportunity to cast a valid vote because of their race.'' He also found that HAVA made the case moot.
Tokaji said the ACLU presented statistics to show that poor, less-educated voters who voted on punch-card systems had more of their votes lost due to inaccurately punched cards. Racial disparities resulted because more of those voters were black, he said.
The ACLU appealed to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, which heard arguments in the case in December 2005.
The decision from the appeals court was 2-1, with Circuit Judges Boyce Martin and R. Guy Cole reversing the part of Dowd's decision on the equal protection and due process claims. Their ruling vacates Dowd's judgment that punch-card voting is not a violation of the Voting Rights Act, and sends the case back to his court for further action on that issue.
Judge Ronald Gilman issued a dissenting opinion.
© 2006 Beacon Journal and wire service sources. All Rights
Reserved.
http://www.ohio.com
Lisa A. Abraham can be reached at 330-996-3737 or [email protected]
Send a letter to the editor about this article See these Directories: Battle for Ohio Directory Directory of Election Fraud Articles For Elections in 2005-2006
Part II. Articles Revealing Election Wrongdoing
Law and Legal Issues
Civil Rights Under Attack
This article is copyrighted material, the use
of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to
advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights,
economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.
We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted
material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material
on this site is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information
for research and educational purposes. For more information go
to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes
of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission
from the copyright owner.
Back to The Yurica Report Home Page
Copyright © 2006Yurica Report. All rights reserved.