4um: Crossover Voting is a 5th Degree Felony in Some States (like Ohio)

Title: Crossover Voting is a 5th Degree Felony in Some States (like Ohio)
Source: http://isaacs.newsvine.com
URL Source: http://isaacs.newsvine.com/_news/20 ... t-obama-in-ohio-more-comes-out
Published: Mar 6, 2008
Author: SCOTT ISAACS
Post Date: 2008-03-21 16:12:36 by robin
Keywords: None
Views: 298
Comments: 18

Butler County in southwest Ohio is the most Republican county of all Ohio's 88 counties. 26 county offices and none of them are held by Democrats. Yet, the strangest thing happened on Tuesday... the Butler County Democratic Party increased in registered members by over 200% and now has more registered members than the Republican Party. Hillary Clinton won this county in the Democratic Primary by 10%.

Barack Obama won only 5 out of 88 counties in Ohio and those counties were the ones where Democrats are abundant. Yet Hillary Clinton won the state by only 10%. I have been told directly by Republicans here in Ohio that they voted for Hillary for the express purpose to either cause a split convention or to get her nominated because they know she is the weakest candidate against John McCain. To a person they will all be returning to voting Republican in the general election. To a judge monitoring the elections, Marilyn Hatfield, numerous Republicans taking a Democratic ballot said they were voting for Hillary "because of that thing Rush said." (Source: Hamilton Journal News, 3-6-08)

If one knows Butler County as I do, having run a campaign here and worked on campaigns my entire life, they will know that the city of Fairfield and West Chester and those surrounding areas are the staunchest strongholds of Republican voters in the county. This is where the farce of Republicans destroying a Democratic primary becomes obvious. These Republican strongholds are colored nearly totally blue, indicating that more voters took Democratic ballots than Republican ones. Since Clinton won Butler County by 10% it can safely be concluded that the majority of Republicans voted for her.

One has to ask himself "Why would a Republican, someone that hates Hillary Clinton from her years as First Lady to perhaps the most polarizing president of the modern era, vote for her?" You needn't wait long for an answer. Republicans have supplied plenty. She is the weakest candidate, they want to vote against her in the general election and need to make sure she'll be there and conservative media moguls told them to.

The law in Ohio, the Ohio Revised Code, is very clear on what Republicans have done. ORC 3513.20 says:
Before any challenged person shall be allowed to vote at a primary election , the person shall make a statement, under penalty of election falsification, before one of the precinct officials, blanks for which shall be furnished by the board of elections, giving name, age, residence, length of residence in the precinct, county, and state; stating that the person desires to be affiliated with and supports the principles of the political party whose ballot the person desires to vote; and giving all other facts necessary to determine whether the person is entitled to vote in that primary election. The statement shall be returned to the office of the board with the pollbooks and tally sheets . . . .

3599.36 Election falsification reads:
No person, either orally or in writing, on oath lawfully administered or in a statement made under penalty of election falsification, shall knowingly state a falsehood as to a material matter relating to an election in a proceeding before a court, tribunal, or election official, or in a matter in relation to which an oath or statement under penalty of election falsification is authorized by law, including a statement required for verifying or filing any declaration of candidacy, declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate, nominating petition, or other petition presented to or filed with the secretary of state, a board of elections, or any other public office for the purpose of becoming a candidate for any elective office, including the office of a political party, for the purpose of submitting a question or issue to the electors at an election, or for the purpose of forming a political party.
Whoever violates this section is guilty of election falsification, a felony of the fifth degree.
A person that commits election falsification can face six to twelve months in prison as well as a $2,500 fine according to Ohio sentencing guidelines (Source: http://www.clelaw.lib.oh.us/Public/Misc/FAQs/Sentencing.html)

The greater question is, what are we as Democrats going to do about this? Are we going to prevent Republicans from flooding the last few primaries and trying to nominate our weakest candidate? Are we going to tolerate Republicans disenfranchising voters of Barack Obama and openly admitting to committing election fraud in Ohio? Are we going to allow the Republicans to game our system and stack the deck in their own favor politically by choosing the Democratic nominee? The answers to these questions will answer whether this party is able, whether it is even fit, to win the White House this year. A party that allows its opponents to choose its nominee and openly laugh about it cannot be an effective governing party.

A reader tipped me off to an issue that's come up with crossover voters in Ohio. It seems that some Republican voters have bragged online that they voted Democratic ballots in the Ohio March 4th primary in order to influence the outcome of the presidential election. Essentially, they wanted to help Hillary Clinton win the Democratic nomination over Barack Obama because they think she's the weaker candidate and would lose against Republican John McCain in November.

The so-called Republican "plot" was instigated by conservative radio talker Rush Limbaugh (at right) who urged Republican voters in Ohio and Texas before the election to cross over for the primary to rig the nomination for the November election. Voters in those states could do this at the last minute because their local election laws allow voters to change party affiliation at the polls.

Ohio's revised election code includes an election falsification clause (Revised Code 3513.20), which says that if a voter who changes parties is challenged by poll workers as to the sincerity of his change of heart and also signs an affidavit stating that he supports the principles of the party to which he's changing -- when in fact he doesn't support them -- then he would be committing election falsification. Election falsification is a felony that is punishable by six to twelve months in jail and a $2,500 fine.

It's clear that cross-over voting occurred in large numbers in Ohio this year. The Ohio secretary of state's office doesn't have statistics yet on how many voters crossed parties in the primary (it's still compiling them), but the Cleveland Plain Dealer is reporting that in Cuyahoga County alone, the state's largest county, at least 16,000 Republicans switched parties for the primary.

The statewide numbers of cross-over voters could be large, since the secretary of state's office reports that the number of Democratic ballots cast in this primary as opposed to the number cast in the 2004 presidential primary increased by nearly a million, or 76 percent. (In comparison, the number of Republican ballots cast this year increased by only about 100,000, or 11 percent. These numbers do not include absentee, provisional and overseas ballots, which are still being counted.)

It's unclear at this point how many of those million extra Democratic ballots can be attributed to cross-over Republicans, as opposed to new voters casting ballots for the first time. It's also unclear how many voters crossed over because they sincerely preferred the Democratic options to the Republican ones. But what about those who didn't and broke the law? Would they be prosecuted and would their vote be counted?

Dan Tokaji, a law professor at Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law who specializes in election law, says it's debatable whether Ohio's law is enforceable and says that even if it is enforceable the likelihood that anyone would be prosecuted under it is "infinitesimally small."

First of all, the law pertains only to a voter who was challenged by poll workers as to his sincerity and signed an affidavit swearing to that sincerity. The secretary of state's office told me that poll workers are supposed to have anyone who switches parties at the polls sign such a statement. The Cleveland Plain Dealer also reported that any voter who switches parties must sign an affidavit.

But Tokaji says it's not clear from the law that the poll worker has an obligation to challenge the voter and have them sign such a statement, and many poll workers did not do this.

Tokaji says that under Ohio law poll workers have the ability to challenge a voter if they believe the voter isn't affiliated with or a member of the political party he's claiming to support in the primary. A poll worker can challenge a voter's membership to the party based on which party the voter voted in the two previous election cycles. Once challenged, a voter has to sign an affidavit expressing support for the principles of his new party, which states clearly that committing election falsification is a felony of the fifth degree. But a voter can refuse to sign the affidavit and still cast a ballot, though he must cast a provisional ballot in this case. Either way, it's clear from statements that some cross-over voters made online that some poll workers did not challenge voters who crossed over and did not have them sign affidavits.

But even those who did sign a statement and did so disingenuously would likely not face prosecution, Tokaji says, unless they were blatant about what they did, such as bragging online about it, and could be identified.

"If after doing this the person gets online and says 'Ha, ha ha. I tricked them and signed this statement,' maybe then we could imagine someone being prosecuted," he says.

But even then, he thinks the likelihood that they would be prosecuted is close to nil.

By the way, cross over voting for purposes of affecting an election isn't limited to Republicans. A spokesman for the Ohio secretary of state's office said it always happens in presidential elections and also occurred during the 2006 gubernatorial primary election when Democratic voters crossed over to cast ballots in the Republican primary for Kenneth Blackwell because they thought he would more likely lose in a race against the Democratic candidate for governor.

(Hat tip: Jon Pincus)

You mean I might be a felon, feloner, felonist or whatever???? Good heavens, dont tell.

'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz

There was a large article in local rag last week about the County being swamped by ind and pub voters changing to democrat.

Gov. Rendell said the voters were not willing to accept a black president. Then the switch started.

Anyone who would actually do this just because Rush suggested it shouldn't be voting IMO.

I don't know if what Limbaugh is urging is illegal under PA law. But, if it is, he can't plead ignorance of the law after this.

It would be hard to prove any criminal intent by individual voters. But Limbaugh is making it quite clear what intent he wants them to have, and it is the intent criminalized by this Ohio law. Maybe they can't prosecute him in Ohio because of jurisdictional problems, but there should be no jurisdictional problems with the Ohio stations that broadcast him (which can hardly plead ignorance of Ohio law.)

To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.

Whatever gave you such an impression. In Pa. I may change my registration anytime and as many times as I desire, the only restriction being a cutoff date prior to voting.

Two weeks ago, gov. Rendell said the voters would not vote for a black man, the switch was on. What is there that you do not understand about politics????

I do not know of any law in any state that places restrictions on changing party affiliation. I have been registered in so many parties and ind that I lose track.

By the way, re Limberg, nine out of ten of the local hill billies would not know or care who he is, but they do know how politics works.