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
Supreme Court Refuses to Reinstate 'Golden Week' Voting Rights in Ohio
Democrats have argued that doing away with a critical early voting period violated constitutional rights of minority voters
Sep 13, 2016
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld Ohio's restrictive voting laws, meaning people will not be able to register and cast a ballot on the same day at the start of the state's early voting period.
The court let stand a previous ruling by a federal appeals court, which in August rejected a challenge by Ohio Democrats that sought to reinstate the window of time, known as the "Golden Week," that was first implemented in 2004 but abolished in 2013 by a Republican legislature.
The Democrats have continually argued that doing away with that rule violated constitutional rights of minority voters, who are more likely to make use of the early period.
"Tens of thousands of Ohio voters have relied on Golden Week during the past two presidential elections, and African Americans have done so at far higher rates than other voters," they told the high court.
The state countered that the Golden Week placed a burden on state and local officials, and noted that it had added an extra Sunday to the existing time period of early voting as part of a separate lawsuit settlement with the NAACP, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and other groups.
Voting hours in Ohio were scrutinized for their disproportionate impact on black residents in the 2004 election, when many people reported waiting in lines for up to 12 hours to cast a ballot. The state then implemented its 35-day early voting period, the first week of which became known as the Golden Week because it allowed people to meet the 30-day deadline for registration and cast their ballots at the same time.
Ohio Democratic Party chairman David Pepper said Tuesday, "Ohio Republicans can keep trying to make it harder for people to vote, but we will continue to fight them at every turn."
SCOTUSblog reported that the Supreme Court allowed the previous ruling to stand "without any noted dissent."
The case is Ohio Democratic Party v. Husted (pdf). It is one of manyvoting rights cases underway ahead of the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. US voters have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. If you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld Ohio's restrictive voting laws, meaning people will not be able to register and cast a ballot on the same day at the start of the state's early voting period.
The court let stand a previous ruling by a federal appeals court, which in August rejected a challenge by Ohio Democrats that sought to reinstate the window of time, known as the "Golden Week," that was first implemented in 2004 but abolished in 2013 by a Republican legislature.
The Democrats have continually argued that doing away with that rule violated constitutional rights of minority voters, who are more likely to make use of the early period.
"Tens of thousands of Ohio voters have relied on Golden Week during the past two presidential elections, and African Americans have done so at far higher rates than other voters," they told the high court.
The state countered that the Golden Week placed a burden on state and local officials, and noted that it had added an extra Sunday to the existing time period of early voting as part of a separate lawsuit settlement with the NAACP, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and other groups.
Voting hours in Ohio were scrutinized for their disproportionate impact on black residents in the 2004 election, when many people reported waiting in lines for up to 12 hours to cast a ballot. The state then implemented its 35-day early voting period, the first week of which became known as the Golden Week because it allowed people to meet the 30-day deadline for registration and cast their ballots at the same time.
Ohio Democratic Party chairman David Pepper said Tuesday, "Ohio Republicans can keep trying to make it harder for people to vote, but we will continue to fight them at every turn."
SCOTUSblog reported that the Supreme Court allowed the previous ruling to stand "without any noted dissent."
The case is Ohio Democratic Party v. Husted (pdf). It is one of manyvoting rights cases underway ahead of the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld Ohio's restrictive voting laws, meaning people will not be able to register and cast a ballot on the same day at the start of the state's early voting period.
The court let stand a previous ruling by a federal appeals court, which in August rejected a challenge by Ohio Democrats that sought to reinstate the window of time, known as the "Golden Week," that was first implemented in 2004 but abolished in 2013 by a Republican legislature.
The Democrats have continually argued that doing away with that rule violated constitutional rights of minority voters, who are more likely to make use of the early period.
"Tens of thousands of Ohio voters have relied on Golden Week during the past two presidential elections, and African Americans have done so at far higher rates than other voters," they told the high court.
The state countered that the Golden Week placed a burden on state and local officials, and noted that it had added an extra Sunday to the existing time period of early voting as part of a separate lawsuit settlement with the NAACP, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and other groups.
Voting hours in Ohio were scrutinized for their disproportionate impact on black residents in the 2004 election, when many people reported waiting in lines for up to 12 hours to cast a ballot. The state then implemented its 35-day early voting period, the first week of which became known as the Golden Week because it allowed people to meet the 30-day deadline for registration and cast their ballots at the same time.
Ohio Democratic Party chairman David Pepper said Tuesday, "Ohio Republicans can keep trying to make it harder for people to vote, but we will continue to fight them at every turn."
SCOTUSblog reported that the Supreme Court allowed the previous ruling to stand "without any noted dissent."
The case is Ohio Democratic Party v. Husted (pdf). It is one of manyvoting rights cases underway ahead of the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
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.
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy