Associated Press
Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted (R)
Last week, a federal judge ordered Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted (R) to leave the state's early-voting window open for all of the state's eligible voters, overturning a Republican law approved last year. Husted's next step should have been, obviously, establishing expanded hours for early voting and setting a statewide schedule.
But Husted had other ideas. On Tuesday, the Republican official, who helps oversee Ohio's elections process, said he intended to ignore the court ruling until after an appeal.
I'm not an attorney, but it's my understanding that federal courts get a little peeved when someone tries to ignore their decisions.
A federal judge ordered Secretary of State Jon Husted on Wednesday to personally appear next week at a hearing about his reluctance to restore early voting the weekend before the Nov. 6 election.
Judge Peter Economus, whose ruling Husted has resisted, scheduled the hearing on Sept. 13 in the U.S. District Court in Columbus.
Economus set the hearing after President Barack Obama's re-election team filed a motion Wednesday requesting the court to enforce its order to restore in-person early voting during the final three days before the presidential election.
Rick Hasen posted a copy of yesterday's order.
From Husted's perspective, his appeal is likely to work -- the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has a reputation for a conservative-friendly circuit -- so he doesn't see any point to making it easier for his own constituents to cast ballots during the upcoming election. On the contrary, as a Republican official, Husted is eager to make it more difficult for Ohio voters to participate, not less.
Unfortunately for the Ohio Secretary of State, however, judges don't much care about defendants' expectations. Economus issued a ruling and he wants Husted to follow it. Decisions from federal courts are not suggestions and they're not optional.
Leave a Comment:
5 hour energy?(/snark)
Decisions from federal courts are not suggestions and they're not optional.
PS. I want a last name like Economus!
Thank you! :)
Husted appears to be working towards a governor or senate nomination down the road. Why do we want less voters, not more? I can't understand the republicants not wanting everyone to vote for them. They can't get 61 percent of the white vote. The republicants will be a party of color, at least they will tell you they are, in four years, mark my words. This sounds like how Russia used to control the vote to get a desired outcome; this will not work in a free america...........
If 90% of the votes one suppresses were destined for your opponent, having fewer voters makes a great deal o sense. GOP is good at math behind the scenes; not so good at public math.
I don't think the Republican party will be diverse or a party of color because they don't quite understand how to reach out to people of color. When you see the world through your own eyes, everyone looks like you.
Isn't white a color? That would let them qualify :D
the Republican's are trying to keep those that vote for Obama from the polls. I believe every US Citizen has a right to vote, next thing you know they will try to keep women from voting. Pathetic........
Remember the corruption in Florida with all the broken chads etc. that mysteriously allowed Bush to win even though we KNOW he didn't? Well that's what I am guessing is going on here, but in order for the votes to be "tampered" with favoring the Republican's, they at least have to get CLOSE. Just sayin....
Ah, victory.
Can't wait for Sept. 13th!
Wish I could be there!
not that it needs to be said, but for a party so willing to wrap itself in the flag, and Americana, and apple pie, blatantly restricting voting rights -- all for partisan political advantage -- could be one of the most unAmerican things anyone could do.
Like cheer leading war , then trying to cut veterans benefits , and not signing up to go fight in the war you are cheer leading for
Not only not American but against the Voter Rights Act l and patently criminal. The judge could hold him Husted in contempt and I hope he does. It is amazing how these Repub State legislators, and Governors think they are above Federal law.
seems like a republican victory under these circumstances is a victory for brown shirts
Non patriotic people ,but pretend to be ,Real patriots put our country first ,before party, church,if you beat the drums of war Romney it would be nice if some of your relatives were in the service ,but I know its not the Mormon way to fight for our country ,just making money off the wars an let others fight
You know your ideas suck when you have to keep people from voting.
Early voting in Ohio starts on October 2.
This lawsuit is over the final weekend, Nov 3-5. An important window, but NOT the only early voting in Ohio.
So if the appeal succeeds after the first early votes are cast, do they become invalid? Or will the state have to count them because of the ruling in effect at the time they are cast?
To me it is the principle . They know who they are trying to stop .
They have said it in public . Urban Populations (NEGROS)
l davis -
I may be wrong, but I think the only early voting in question here is early in-person voting the three days before Nov. 6. I don't bellieve there are any changes to existing early vote-by-mail in Ohio. It's just a question of whether polls will be open to all Ohioans on Nov. 3, 4, and 5, or limited to active military.
Doesn't matter. When early voting wasn't around, the Republicans carried Ohio. When it was implemented the Democrats carried Ohio. Now, for some "strange" reason the Ohio Republican government wants it removed. When Ohio had early voting, voting went smoothly. Before that the lines were incredibly long, and a lot of people left in disgust.
It's easy why the Republicans want the broken system back, as they prosper with it. But what boggles my mind is that they are willing to go to jail to keep President Obama from being reelected. There must be some deep-seeded hatred to do that.
Isn't Husted looking at a contempt citation here? Would the judge have the authority to take Husted into custody under such a citation?
Maybe Husted can make it on national TV as they perp walk him to the courtroom.
Just a guess here, but I'm thinking Economus wants Husted to come into his court and say to his face, either "Okay I'll comply with your order" or "No, I'm not following your order." Of course, the latter would and should bring a finding of contempt, and hopefully the appropriate consequences.
What will probably happen, though, is Husted will come into court and say "I'm appealing your ruling and not changing course until that appeal is ruled on." Husted had better have a legitimate legal basis for doing so; otherwise Economus will still arrive at a finding of contempt.
A quick search on "Contempt of a federal court order" revealed this:
Also:
And this might explain why Economus has ordered Husted to appear before him.
Source for the above quotes: http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-3/09-contempt-power.html
Since judges are appointed by politicians, I don't trust their impartiality. This sounds good that this judge is calling Husted to account, but I'd sure like to know what his credentials are, politically and ethically. My cynicism is running on steroids and I pretty much doubt the integrity of the political system, as it stands. I will vote for Obama this time, but I am sad to say that I have grown disappointed over the past 3+ years in the functioning of the U.S. political system.
Please make me eat my words.
Fascists always end up flouting the laws while they destroy the governments they're out to "save."
Federal judges are appointed for life and thus once confirmed are politically immune. As far at credentials, judicial appointees are pretty well vetted. Judicial independence on the federal level is stronger than on the state level where you often have judicial retention elections. I understand your cynicism as well, things have been pretty bad the last 4 years.
The judge appears to have a very solid background:
http://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/judges/jeconomus.htm
Actually Democrats have no problem ignoring judges. I'd say Husted is on solid ground. See the transgression of judicial order to resume gulf oil drilling.
Aw, shooter, still back with accusations and the lovely argument, "but but they do it too!" just freshly heard on the playground.
Tsk. if Democrats can stiff judges, so can Republicans. You set a standard, don't whine when it's applied across the board.
So Republicans are as vile as Democrats. Good to know. Anytime you say anything negative about Democrats from now on I will be sure to mirror that comment back to you since you just admitted Republicans are the equivalent. So when you say Democrats are for big government that means Republicans are for big government. When you say Democrats are child molesters that means Republicans are child molesters. This'll be fun
For the record the ruling you're referring to was merely that the judge felt the Obama Administration was taking too long in issuing new drilling permits. But, ya know, when have facts ever stopped you before?
Glad to see you acknowledge Democrats are vile. And no, I didn't say Republicans are equivalent.
Yeah you did. That is the trouble with red herrings Shooter. You implicitly agree with the argument that you are attempting to go against.
Also you reeeeeeeaaaaallllyyyyy need to look up the term sarcasm.
Sarcasm? Let me suggest you try sticking to substance rather than style. Being longwinded doesn't work well in a comment section.
they're
I was totally going to point that out LOL
Great article...as usual. Now...just change 'their' to 'they're' in that last sentence. :-))
In the last sentence, it's "they're," not "their."
"they're not optional" - not "their not optional" :P
Can we have him put in jail for "Contempt of Court"? And can I turn the keys to lock the jail cell? Just asking....
This tactic, (blatantly ignoring court rulings, federal or state), has been used a lot in Wisconsin. They're all working from the same play-book.
You have a typo at the end of the article, "their' should be 'they're.'
Catch up folks, I'm on it. (/snarkle)
They're, not their.
It's been fixed! So, let it go...
There, there! :-)
Federal judges are appointed for life and the only way to remove them is death, disability or impeachment. They are not beholden to any politician or political party once they are appointed. Unless the appeals court stays the order, the judge is correct in bringing Husted in to answer. I would not bet the farm that the appeals court will stay the order because they do not like state officials telling them that a court order means nothing. Husted may have screwed up the possibility for a stay because of his arrogance. The appeals court may feel disinclined to do anything since there are district court proceedings involving contempt. Judges, regardless of political philosophy, do not like people thumbing their nose at a court order. Conservative judges do not necessarily feel any compulsion to rule a certain way when it does not involve business interests. In this case, the issue is about a constitutional right that has nothing to do with business.
I pray you are correct, these judges scare me! I never realized the importance of voting for judges, I see their names on the ballots and most of the time I don't know anything about them or their party affiliation. This year I will know the party affiliation of the judges I vote for!
They get a little more blatantly obvious with every step - not even bothering to hide it anymore.
"Decisions from federal courts are not suggestions and their not optional." You have a typo -- it should read "they are" not "their"
I hate to be the one but could you guys please change "their" in the last sentence to "they're" which is what it supposed to be?
They, THEY'RE, there.
Husted even LOOKS like a douche.
Hooray for justice!!! (Now look at the "their" in your
last sentence. Try "they're.")
Breaking the law is something the GOP has no problem with doing to win an election