Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Ohio sec state gives up on blocking the early voting

Posted 1 year ago on Sept. 8, 2012, 8:03 a.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

But the state is trying to put the restrictions back via a court appeal

63 Comments

63 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

They may have heard that the appeal will go their way! Which of course is a horrible voter suppression crime! Especially since it will happen so close to the election.

Great post

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

So many of the cases have been decided in favor of the people, I think we have a good shot
BUT
Amusingly, the court’s opinion relies on the Supreme Court’s infamous decision in Bush v. Gore to reach this holding, citing Bush‘s statement that “[h]aving once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over that of another.” Judge Economus’ decision will be appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, a Republican-leaning court with a history of legally-challenged partisan decisions benefiting the Republican Party. So it remains to be seen whether Economus’ decision will have staying power.

The Romney campaign, for its part, opposed the Obama campaign’s position in this lawsuit. Had the Romney position prevailed, as many as 900,000 military veterans could have had their right to vote impeded.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Ok! Obviously I hope you are correct. Ohio is critical, as 2004 showed us.

[-] -1 points by Lucky1 (-125) from Wray, CO 1 year ago

But requiring voter I.d. To vote is wrong...

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

THREAT ?????????? ALLEGED????????????????


SEATTLE (AP) — A government transparency group is urging an investigation into Federal Aviation Administration managers who allegedly urged workers in Seattle to vote Democrat in the upcoming elections.

The Washington, D.C.-based group Cause of Action sent a letter Wednesday to the U.S. Department of Transportation's inspector general saying that in May at a mandatory staff meeting in Seattle, two senior FAA managers told employees that if Republicans win the presidential and congressional elections, the agency would face budget cuts. They allegedly said that if Democrats win, their budget would remain largely unchanged.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

"Employees at the meeting complained that the statements felt like a threat."

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Group-FAA-bosses-urged-workers-to-vote-Democrat-3841987.php#ixzz25vLodVIW

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20555) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

must have been a couple of silly repelicans who don't realize it could be

  • their own jobs

say nothing of airline safety for seatle . . .

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

And you think these employees are stupid enough to believe their employer will know who they vote for?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

They believe it.

"Employees at the meeting complained that the statements felt like a threat."

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Group-FAA-bosses-urged-workers-to-vote-Democrat-3841987.php#ixzz25vLodVIW

[-] 1 points by shooz (26741) 1 year ago

So you're saying the (R)epelican'ts aren't threatening them?

Sounds to me like they are.

Hell, they threaten every union out there.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Political pressure from the boss creates a hostile workplace. The FCC thinks so and is promising to take the allegations "very seriously and will cooperate fully with any review." It is wrong no matter who does it.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26741) 1 year ago

C'mon admit it.

It's done all the time, and no one complains at all.

You're just pissed because it's a federal agency.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

At one time women did not complain about sexual harassment in the workplace. Today supervisors lose their jobs for it; as they should.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26741) 1 year ago

So then we should fire all the (R)epelican'ts that threaten folks in the work place!!!!

Good idea.

All those threatening the USPS have to go.

Are you with us 1sealyon?

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Absolutely. Fire them all!

[-] 1 points by shooz (26741) 1 year ago

Good!

'Cause that's pretty much the whole lot of (R)epelican'ts.

They all threaten union workers every single day.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Really, which ones? If you disclose their names and evidence of their crimes it should be easy to convict them.

The EEOC is waiting to hear from you. It is your duty to expose the " whole lot of Reps" that threaten Union workers every single day.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26741) 1 year ago

the list would be too huge for this forum, but you can start here.

http://www.vltp.net/alec/aleckoch-cabal-pursuing-privatization-postal-service-ups-fedex

And look through the list of ALEC supporters here.

http://alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed

Then there's any number of......... giggle........um, this is hard to do...........Tea Party "people".

That's the very first time I didn't them teabagge(R)s.....................I feel dirty.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

http://www.vltp.net/alec/aleckoch-cabal-pursuing-privatization-postal-service-ups-fedex

Well I guess some law must have been broken, but it would help the folks at the EEOC (you know they are just civil servants) if you give more guidance on whom is guilty of what.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26741) 1 year ago

So if you have the ability to change the laws to make your threat, not a legal threat, that's OK with you?

Interesting insight.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

If the threat is legal no law is broken.

If pols make bad laws fire them.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Is that wrong?

[-] 1 points by marvelpym (-184) 1 year ago

Whoa. Look out. What the heck was that thing that just flew out the window? Oh, it was your credibility.

Don't feel bad. Shooz and Bensdad's followed close behind.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Are you seeing things? Have you lost your mind.? Perhaps medication.

Workers should know that one party is a threat to their jobs. Informing them is only against the law because of a law that party wrote.

understand?

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

NAFTA and GATT were bipartisan in a big way.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

They were conservative policies,

But that doesn't change the fact that public sector jobs are threatened by republican efforts to cut budgets.

Workers should be informed of this. Why would it be illegal to give workers honest information.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

What exactly is conservative about trading with communist countries? Is it becaues the Dems were the ones that started Vietnam war to contain communism (total bullshit) so trading with communist countries would then be conservative?

Because it is classic liberalism that wants open borders.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Nope

Free trade is conservative policy 101. Helps corps, hurts workers.

Liberals try and fail to add worker rights, and environmental requirements to trade agreements, conservatives work against that.

right?

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Protectionism is usually associated with conservatism more so than liberalism.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Doesn't change the facts I mentioned.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

ACtually it does.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Nope! Republicans have been cutting state budgets, and busting unions for a long time. They are currently trying to bust the postal workers union.

These are just the facts. Workers should be informed. It should not be illegal to let workers know that one party is threatening their job.

The other party supports the worker/union 99%.

You disagree? You don't support the workers right to know?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Bosses threatening workers? Maybe yes.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Allegedly threaten. Right? And it doesn't look like they said "vote this way or else"

So I think they probably did the right thing.

I think further that the hatch law thing is a violation of free speech. Seems just republicans (hatch) trying to keep government workers from knowing the truth.

That ain't right!

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

So you justify bad behavior with examples of bad behavior?

Political pressure from the boss creates a hostile workplace. The FCC thinks so and is promising to take the allegations "very seriously and will cooperate fully with any review."

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Group-FAA-bosses-urged-workers-to-vote-Democrat-3841987.php#ixzz25vLFdj7O

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Good luck to them. The law is designed by republicans to keep workers from being informed.

The workers should know that if they vote for republicans their jobs are in jeopardy!

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

"Employees at the meeting complained that the statements felt like a threat."

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Group-FAA-bosses-urged-workers-to-vote-Democrat-3841987.php#ixzz25vLodVIW

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You said that already.!

It's being investigated. Workers should know one party is hostile to them.

Nothing wrong with that.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

No my words, but the words of threatened employees. Why must people suffer supervisor threats in the work place?

"Employees at the meeting complained that the statements felt like a threat."

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Group-FAA-bosses-urged-workers-to-vote-Democrat-3841987.php#ixzz25vLodVIW

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

They were mistaken! the statements were not a threat of being fired unless they voted how mgmt said.

The statements were informing the workers of the threat that budget cutting/union busting republicans posed on their jobs.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Were you present at the meeting when the employees were threatened? How do you what happened? Why blame the victim and let the perp walk free? Why must people suffer supervisor threats in the work place?

"Employees at the meeting complained that the statements felt like a threat."

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Group-FAA-bosses-urged-workers-to-vote-Democrat-3841987.php#ixzz25vLodVIW

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Just giving my opinion. That's allowed isn't it? You calling the supervisor "the perp" is a reach. And that "employees" complained is misleading. I believe it was 2 -3 of the hundreds who complained. The vast majority did not complain because they were not threatened!

Because every employee knows the supervisor didn't tell them how to vote, can't check on how they vote, & has no power to fire if they don't like their vote.

Just a distraction. No real threat to employment or political process. The real problem is the law that prevents workers from being informed that one party wants to cut the budget and destroy their jobs.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Disagree.

In a work setting people frequently, however unwisely, let their political leanings be known in casual conversation. They are then singled out by their boss for harassment and pressure from their coworkers. This is wrong. This practice makes for a hostile workplace. Religion, politics, and other non-work related issues should not be subjects presented, particularly by supervisors, in the work place.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Let the church speak just take away their special priv.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Maybe but churches have gotten & get more special priv than any other groups.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

They are all 501 (3) (c) orgs with the same priv.

Why let the Gov steal all of their free speech rights?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Not the same special priv as the Churches.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Along with churches many orgs enjoy the same priv described in the following:

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p557/ch03.html

Other 501 (3) (c) orgs include:

Charitable Organizations

Religious Organizations

Scientific Organizations

Literary Organizations

Amateur Athletic Organizations

Prevention of Cruelty to Children or Animals

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You have listed many non Church liberal groups, who do not have the special priviledges that churchs have.

I don't see the connection.

Let the churches speak. Just end there special priviledges.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Those groups are all tax exempt 501s with special privileges. Some are 501 (3)(c).

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I say let them speak! But stop the sweet deal they've enjoyed for no good reason.

Churches also get a lot of money from the govt if they run hospitals, or schools.

Churches should pay property tax at least. Enough coddling of these bronze age fairy tale pushers.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

How about these 501 tax exempts? Must they lose their free speech rights as well:

Planned Parenthood

NAACP

NARAL

NOW

OWS

PETA

Sierra Club

etc

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I disagree.

Churches are not punished. They have been rewarded from the beginning with free land and then tax free land.

They're not supposed to take part in politics Since they do, the sweet deal should be rescinded.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

It is not just churches that are punished but any charity that wants to exercise free speech rights.

It is clearly a power grab by the Gov to silence free speech. I am surprised that you support such an obvious violation of basic human rights.

Charitable organizations should be tax exempt because of their works for the public good, not because they can be gagged by power mongers in the Gov.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I don't the connection. But I do not support churches involvement in politics. Since they are the should immediately be charged at least property tax.

I did like the bishops finally said they felt Ryans budget was immoral in it's cuts to poor services.

And the nuns on the bus were pretty cool.

Basically I like any help for the poor that we can get.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

I never understood the reasoning behind threatening non-profits with loss of tax exempt status for voicing their opinions about affairs of state. Suppose you are a non-profit child care provider, should you be forbidden to voice publicly your support for the candidate advocating funding for pre-school?

Why are they fined for speech that is disliked by the government. Seems totalitarian.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

But workers MUST be informed about the reality that one party is out to destroy their jobs.

Their Spvsrs should be able to do that (which does not equal harassment, pressure) and the republican law that abridges their free speech is obviously a violation of their free speech.

Seems to me the republicans are taking away these spvsrs free speech rights and trying to keep workers uninformed in an attempt to keep the workers from voting for Dems.

Repubs use the false threat of harassment, pressure, of wrkrs, to do this, just as they use the false threat of voter fraud to pass new voter requirements designed to suppress the dem vote.

insidious!

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Are you ok with information given out by these bosses? :

http://occupywallst.org/forum/keep-the-church-out-of-politics/