Cuyahoga County launches investigation into crossover voters

Ivor Karabatkovic · Post by **Ivor Karabatkovic** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 10:41 am

PD article

$2,500 fine and up to 12 months in jail.

I understand that people who switched their ballots on purpose are liars and con artists but that's a hefty fine!

I think a better punishment would be to strip their votes for the next 4 years. Fining people wouldn't be a smart idea in a economy like this one at a time like this.

While I knew that this was going on, I didn't think the number was 16,000 in this county alone. Also, I didn't expect that they would actually hunt after these people.

sharon kinsella · Post by **sharon kinsella** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 10:43 am

Ivor -

I don't think the people that did this were thinking that they would be criminally prosecuted.

What fun!

Ivor Karabatkovic · Post by **Ivor Karabatkovic** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 10:53 am

sharon kinsella wrote:Ivor -

I don't think the people that did this were thinking that they would be criminally prosecuted.

What fun!

They haven't formally decided to prosecute.

But I think it will happen. Why would they mention something big like this without following up on it?

You raise a good point. At the same time, that point reminds me of true criminals who also don't think they can get caught. That's one of the reasons why they commit crimes.

I don't understand the logic behind boasting about democracy and trying to force it upon other nations, when at the same time this party and it's members are misusing one of the most powerful privileges that democracy can give a citizen.

When democracy is run right, we are the leaders of this planet and everyone loves us. When democracy is run wrong, we are hated world wide and have economic woes and our own people not being able to get medical care and keep their homes. When democracy is run right, businesses are booming and people don't commit crimes out of pure desperation to feed their children. When democracy is run wrong, the government has to spy over every phone call you make, every dollar you spend, and every link that you click because it believes that the threat lies within the American borders, not outside of them.

sharon kinsella · Post by **sharon kinsella** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 10:57 am

Ivor - You do understand a lot.

There are so many truly evil things happening in our country and until we hold those people (on every level) accountable for their behavior they will continue to behave badly.

Blessings to you and your famiy Ivor.

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 11:54 am

so much for freedom .... what a joke

Stan Austin · Post by **Stan Austin** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 2:13 pm

What this shows is the error of the law in the first place, not in the attempted prosecution.

One should be able to vote as one wishes, and that includes selecting whatever ballot - be it Republican, Democrat, or issues.

Party allegiance can't be maintained by blind and irrelevant recitation of oaths.

All this would take is a simple elimination of that requirement of an oath to select a ballot that reflects a change in party which must be done by the legislature.

Even though this effort to "infiltrate" the Democratic primary was made to ostensibly make my party's candidate weaker, I recognize it for the imbecility that it is.

Do our legistlors?

Stan Austin

Phil Florian · Post by **Phil Florian** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 3:14 pm

Yeah, this is a joke. They should leave well-enough alone. The people that crossed party lines to vote did a dishonest tactic but it isn't illegal, just lying (oh the line at the Priest the following weekend). I think some Democratic leadership needs to hose down anyone wanting to make this a court case. I would think it punishment enough that those that signed over to the Democrats for a year are going to receive Dennis! mailings as well Obama mailings and so on.

I see this as a positive thing, actually. Republicans fear Obama as a candidate enough that they will lie about their affiliation to make it not happen. That's a pretty powerful endorsement of Obama as a candidate, if you ask me. What is sad is that by making this a "legal issue" people will opt not to admit it for fear of being prosecuted by a stupid law. I would rather they stand up and sing out what they did (as some did in interviews on election day). That kind of endorsement you can't beat. Vote for Obama: Republicans Fear He Will Win.

Brian Pedaci · Post by **Brian Pedaci** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 3:35 pm

There are enough things within the Cuy Co BOE that require investigation that this should have been a non-starter.

Stephen Calhoun · Post by **Stephen Calhoun** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 5:17 pm

I'm considering caring enough about this weird PD article and its implications to investigate what said "pledge form" is, and where it is made available and for what reasons, and, who is compelled to or otherwise voluntarily pledges affiliation with a party prior to election day.

Next would be to read the statute.

Since I didn't register as anything but as a voter, I'm curious how the language of the statute deals with the presumably voluntary pledge of affiliation.

However, since Ohio voters do not have to without exception ('equally') declare their party affiliation prior to voting, it would seem that just on the face of it, the statute is unconstitutional given--at least--that it affords a standard of protection to one group of voters and same is not made available to those who pledge an affiliation.

I think cross-over voting is cynical and tactical but I would defend the practice simply because the voter's intent is to be respected regardless of its after-the-fact explanation. Thus: all intents earn respect as would flipping a coin.

I don't see how it would even be remotely possible to establish malicious intent unless the statute's language sanctions only voting in the opposing party's primary based in the discrepancy between declaration and actual vote.

Of course the actual voting procedure is--by law--anonymous in the sense that the voter's identity is known but who the voter voted for is not known. However, alas, 'improvement' in the voting procedure now make it possible to link voter sign-in with a numbered vote.

That probably would be subject to a Constitutional objection too.

***

Disgraceful waste of tax monies on anti-democratic gamesmanship.

Stephen Calhoun · Post by **Stephen Calhoun** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 5:24 pm

Oh one other thing: I don't even see how it would pass muster to even ask a voter as part of discovery or litigation why they voted for whomever.

***

"Anyone who crossed lines was supposed to sign a pledge card vowing allegiance to their new party"

Guess: unconstitutional.

Slam dunk unconstitutional.

Jim DeVito · Post by **Jim DeVito** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 6:06 pm

Stephen Calhoun wrote:Oh one other thing: I don't even see how it would pass muster to even ask a voter as part of discovery or litigation why they voted for whomever.

***

"Anyone who crossed lines was supposed to sign a pledge card vowing allegiance to their new party"

Guess: unconstitutional.

Slam dunk unconstitutional.

Absolutely. There is no way that will ever stand up. They simply realized their candidate could not stand up on his own merits. So when faced with a situation that might not go there way, they did what they have done time and time again. LIE. Should we punish them? No. The ohio republicans who voted on the â€œdark sideâ€

Jim DeVito · Post by **Jim DeVito** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 6:08 pm

Also I am not saying that the democrats would not do the same thing if the tables had been reserved. Maybe not as many. But nun the less lying to get your way seems to be the way to go now a days.