Ohio Supreme Court Rules to Allow Challengers

The Ohio Supreme Court ^

[bushisdamanin04]

Great! Two more judges (one a GOP appointee) attempting to rewrite election law for the Dims. We can expect a lot more of this in the next month from the Dims.

I am confused about one thing. I don't think the state Supreme Court has the right to overrule a federal court. The appeal was supposed to go to the 6th Circuit. Maybe the state Supreme Court timed this to make it difficult for the federal judges to get involved again.

[bushisdamanin04]

Thanks. A federal district court decision can only be overturned by pne of the federal appellate courts.

[meyer]

There have been three rulings: (1) Judge Dlott (Federal Court - Cinci) held no challengers; (2) Judge Adams (Federal Court -- Akron) no challengers for sole purpose of challenging; and, (3) Ohio Supreme Court, Blackwell and other Ohio officials must uphold Ohio law, and allow challengers.

There's been a 4th ruling - by the sixth circuit in favor of letting the observers/challengers in, thus reversing the rulings of the two federal court judges.

I had mistakenly thought in another thread that the Adams decision was in a court subserveant to the Ohio SC, but I was wrong.

[Teslas Pigeon]

I'm in no way an expert on this, but I think a federal court can look at state law if there is a federal issue. An example would be a state law that violates federal civil rights law. In this case I think what is happening is the dims have brought cases in both state and Federal courts to try to get rid of poll watchers. It seems like from what people are reporting, they were shot down in both.

[Enterprise]

That is my impression too. If the State Supreme Court issues one ruling, and a Federal Appeals Court issues a conflicting ruling, the Federal Court ruling is primary unless it's overruled by the US Supreme Court. I think that the only way the Republicans can prevail is for the US Supreme Court to issue a stay on the Federal Appeals Court ruling and that would have to be before or soon after the polls opened.

[Revel]

"You're totally wrong and clearly do not understand the ruling."

You obviously have a problem with reading comprehension. The challenges and lawsuits, recounts, ect...are just beginning. That is my meaning. I am very happy with these decisions tonight. During the election of 2000...I was here almost 24-7 as where many of us. Most of us were living on NO SLEEP as we searched for the latest on FR and the globe....As we prayed and hoped for the law to be upheld and the corrupter's to be stopped. Many here headed to Florida to volunteer for demonstrations...ballot counting...ect. Some brilliant Freepers came up with the whole "Sore Loser-man" sign and campaign. If you were not here then you don't have a clue. So please don't insult me.

[Sid Knows Decency]

AMEN. This and similar recent situations are just appalling. There must be some legal redress available with respect to these lower judges spec., lack of fitness to continue serving. When this is all over, reviews, invetigations - whatever it takes - these jokers ought to be sent back to school, or removed from their jobs.

[slatimer]

Can someone who knows about Ohio elections answer is it the law that party's can have challengers in the polling place??

[Kaisersrsic]

Support for Blackwell on this thread is misplaced.

[meow]

If it weren't for those meddling kids...

;)

[rdl6989]

Good. Then maybe it is settled. There isn't enough time to take it to the U.S. Supreme Court.

[AndyJackson]

The U.S.District Court can overturn any state court decision.

Nope. On state law the State Supreme Court is tops and the only appeal is the the USSC, who could decline to hear the case and let it stand.

[Bush gal in LA]

To all, these rules about the challengers have been in place the last 51 years! It seems the rats are trying to change the rules, after the game again! TO ALL GOP LAWYERS, YOU ROCK!! GO BUSH!

[Ruth C]

I think it has something to do with where you appeal cases. I think there is a 'pecking order'. Not the legal term, but I remember hearing about cases that got turned back by Fed Appeals court as 'not ripe' meaning hadn't happened, or hadn't gone through all lower level appeals.

I also think that unless it IS a federal constitutional issue that the Federal Appeals Court does not have jurisdiction over a state constitution. States' Rights.

[bushisdamanin04]

Yes, a "little used" Ohio law.

[pabtahian]

I'm pretty sure that a federal court can look at a purely state law matter. I don't think that there has to be some kind of federal matter that brings the whole case before it as pendant jurisdiction. But, as I said, I might be remembering wrong...

Anyway, I'm sure this will all be forgotten tomorrow as we look at our future destiny.

[rjmeagle]

Not unless there is a real Mary Poppins ;-)

[bushisdamanin04]

No, a federal court can generally only get involved in a state matter if there is a federal issue, such as a federal due process or equal protection claim. The two District COurt judges ruled the state law unconstitutional based on the U.S. Constitution.

[Bush gal in LA]

But wait Michael Jackson, Donald Duck and Dick Tracy are now going to be disenfranchised! BOO HOO!

[Teslas Pigeon]

OK, thanks for the info. Anyway it looks like all these decisions being discussed here have gone our way, tomorrow is looking good.