SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
US Supreme Court Snubs Early Voting in Ohio
Decision by nation's highest court is not final, but voting rights advocates say it indicates troubling mindset of court as similar challenges head its way
Sep 30, 2014
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled that early voting in the state of Ohio can be curtailed, ignoring arguments that access to early voting improves turnout and gives wider poll access, particularly to working, low-income, and elderly people.
The decision came just hours before early voting was set to begin in the state and critics of the decision worry that the court has signaled how it may rule on similar voting rights cases from other states that our now making their way through lower courts.
According to SCOTUS Blog:
With just sixteen hours before polling stations were to open in Ohio, the Supreme Court on Monday afternoon blocked voters from beginning [Tuesday] to cast their ballots in this year's general election. By a vote of five to four, the Justices put on hold a federal judge's order providing new opportunities for voting before election day, beyond what state leaders wanted. [...]
Depending upon the timing of the state's filing of a petition for review and the Court's action on it, Monday's order may also mean that early voting will not be permitted on most Sundays between now and election day, November 4, and will not be permitted during evening hours -- that is, after 5 p.m.
Early voting during "Golden Week," on Sundays, and in evening hours are the opportunities that civil rights groups have said are most important to black and low-income voters and the homeless.
Advocates supportive of increased early voting were appalled by the court's decision.
"We are disappointed that by a bare majority, the Supreme Court reinstated controversial voting changes that could make it harder for tens of thousands of Ohioans to vote," said Wendy Weiser, director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. "Courts should serve as a bulwark against rollbacks to voting rights and prevent politicians from disenfranchising voters for political reasons."
And Dale Ho, director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project, said: "Thousands of Ohioans rely on early voting. For many, it is their only chance to cast a ballot during an election. While today's order is not a final ruling on the merits, it will deprive many Ohioans of the opportunity to vote in the upcoming election as this case continues to make its way through the courts."
Though the court has repeatedly gone out of its way to grant ever-wider influence of money and large donors in political campaigns and elections, critics say that this latest decision reveals the conservative majority's disdain for legislation designed to improve voter access for everyday voters.
As John Nichols writes at The Nation:
In case there was any remaining confusion with regard to the precise political intentions of the US Supreme Court's activist majority, things were clarified Monday. The same majority that has made it easier for corporations to buy elections (with the Citizens United v. FEC decision) and for billionaires to become the dominant players in elections across the country (with the McCutcheon v. FEC decision) decided to make it harder for people in Ohio to vote.
Yes, this Court has messed with voting rights before, frequently and in damaging ways. It has barely been a year since the majority struck down key elements of the Voting Rights Act.
But Monday's decision by the majority was especially blatant--and immediate.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled that early voting in the state of Ohio can be curtailed, ignoring arguments that access to early voting improves turnout and gives wider poll access, particularly to working, low-income, and elderly people.
The decision came just hours before early voting was set to begin in the state and critics of the decision worry that the court has signaled how it may rule on similar voting rights cases from other states that our now making their way through lower courts.
According to SCOTUS Blog:
With just sixteen hours before polling stations were to open in Ohio, the Supreme Court on Monday afternoon blocked voters from beginning [Tuesday] to cast their ballots in this year's general election. By a vote of five to four, the Justices put on hold a federal judge's order providing new opportunities for voting before election day, beyond what state leaders wanted. [...]
Depending upon the timing of the state's filing of a petition for review and the Court's action on it, Monday's order may also mean that early voting will not be permitted on most Sundays between now and election day, November 4, and will not be permitted during evening hours -- that is, after 5 p.m.
Early voting during "Golden Week," on Sundays, and in evening hours are the opportunities that civil rights groups have said are most important to black and low-income voters and the homeless.
Advocates supportive of increased early voting were appalled by the court's decision.
"We are disappointed that by a bare majority, the Supreme Court reinstated controversial voting changes that could make it harder for tens of thousands of Ohioans to vote," said Wendy Weiser, director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. "Courts should serve as a bulwark against rollbacks to voting rights and prevent politicians from disenfranchising voters for political reasons."
And Dale Ho, director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project, said: "Thousands of Ohioans rely on early voting. For many, it is their only chance to cast a ballot during an election. While today's order is not a final ruling on the merits, it will deprive many Ohioans of the opportunity to vote in the upcoming election as this case continues to make its way through the courts."
Though the court has repeatedly gone out of its way to grant ever-wider influence of money and large donors in political campaigns and elections, critics say that this latest decision reveals the conservative majority's disdain for legislation designed to improve voter access for everyday voters.
As John Nichols writes at The Nation:
In case there was any remaining confusion with regard to the precise political intentions of the US Supreme Court's activist majority, things were clarified Monday. The same majority that has made it easier for corporations to buy elections (with the Citizens United v. FEC decision) and for billionaires to become the dominant players in elections across the country (with the McCutcheon v. FEC decision) decided to make it harder for people in Ohio to vote.
Yes, this Court has messed with voting rights before, frequently and in damaging ways. It has barely been a year since the majority struck down key elements of the Voting Rights Act.
But Monday's decision by the majority was especially blatant--and immediate.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled that early voting in the state of Ohio can be curtailed, ignoring arguments that access to early voting improves turnout and gives wider poll access, particularly to working, low-income, and elderly people.
The decision came just hours before early voting was set to begin in the state and critics of the decision worry that the court has signaled how it may rule on similar voting rights cases from other states that our now making their way through lower courts.
According to SCOTUS Blog:
With just sixteen hours before polling stations were to open in Ohio, the Supreme Court on Monday afternoon blocked voters from beginning [Tuesday] to cast their ballots in this year's general election. By a vote of five to four, the Justices put on hold a federal judge's order providing new opportunities for voting before election day, beyond what state leaders wanted. [...]
Depending upon the timing of the state's filing of a petition for review and the Court's action on it, Monday's order may also mean that early voting will not be permitted on most Sundays between now and election day, November 4, and will not be permitted during evening hours -- that is, after 5 p.m.
Early voting during "Golden Week," on Sundays, and in evening hours are the opportunities that civil rights groups have said are most important to black and low-income voters and the homeless.
Advocates supportive of increased early voting were appalled by the court's decision.
"We are disappointed that by a bare majority, the Supreme Court reinstated controversial voting changes that could make it harder for tens of thousands of Ohioans to vote," said Wendy Weiser, director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. "Courts should serve as a bulwark against rollbacks to voting rights and prevent politicians from disenfranchising voters for political reasons."
And Dale Ho, director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project, said: "Thousands of Ohioans rely on early voting. For many, it is their only chance to cast a ballot during an election. While today's order is not a final ruling on the merits, it will deprive many Ohioans of the opportunity to vote in the upcoming election as this case continues to make its way through the courts."
Though the court has repeatedly gone out of its way to grant ever-wider influence of money and large donors in political campaigns and elections, critics say that this latest decision reveals the conservative majority's disdain for legislation designed to improve voter access for everyday voters.
As John Nichols writes at The Nation:
In case there was any remaining confusion with regard to the precise political intentions of the US Supreme Court's activist majority, things were clarified Monday. The same majority that has made it easier for corporations to buy elections (with the Citizens United v. FEC decision) and for billionaires to become the dominant players in elections across the country (with the McCutcheon v. FEC decision) decided to make it harder for people in Ohio to vote.
Yes, this Court has messed with voting rights before, frequently and in damaging ways. It has barely been a year since the majority struck down key elements of the Voting Rights Act.
But Monday's decision by the majority was especially blatant--and immediate.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.