This ruling from Ohio's highest court is 'an affront' to disabled voters
Source: MSNBC
It makes no sense to prevent people who may help disabled people complete their ballots from using drop boxed to submit those ballots.
The Ohio Supreme Court, splitting 4-3 along partisan lines, sided Tuesday with the states Republican secretary of state, Frank LaRose, who issued a rule in August that said voting drop boxes can be used only by people who deliver their own ballots. Voting rights advocates say LaRoses rule violates a provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which says that any voter who requires assistance to vote by reason of blindness, disability or inability to read or write may be given assistance by a person of the voters choice.
Many disabled voters are immunocompromised and cannot leave their home. Others have difficulty writing their own ballots because they lack limbs or because they are blind. It makes no sense to prevent people who may help them complete their ballots from using drop boxed to submit those ballots.
Read more: https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/ohio-supreme-court-drop-box-disabled-voters-rcna175701
mopinko
(71,965 posts)it ought to b news that 1 party has passed hundreds of laws/rules to nibble away at the right to vote.
and that they have been uniformly struck down, not by doj, but by 1 man (and his firm), marc elias.
they knew that when they passed them, but hoped enough of them wd stick to sway the election. and if they had, they might.
MayReasonRule
(1,938 posts):
slightlv
(4,441 posts)But SCOTUS was the one who got the ball rolling with this. It's past time to start screaming about them!
wolfie001
(3,844 posts)Both POS.
Bluejeans
(93 posts)From Title 42-THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
CHAPTER 126-EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES
SUBCHAPTER II-PUBLIC SERVICES
Part A-Prohibition Against Discrimination and Other Generally Applicable Provisions
§12132. Discrimination
Subject to the provisions of this subchapter, no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.
( Pub. L. 101336, title II, §202, July 26, 1990, 104 Stat. 337 .)
https://uscode.house.gov/browse/prelim@title42/chapter126/subchapter2/partA&edition=prelim
groundloop
(12,386 posts)So I think we know what the GQP thinks of people with disabilities.
angrychair
(9,891 posts)These people, Republicans, are the the people some are advocating should be part of the Harris administration?
The people that want to deny people with no arms or that are blind, the right to vote.
This is who Republicans are.
slightlv
(4,441 posts)I'm angry, too. On one hand, I can understand that retaining our democracy is more important than just about anything... and right now, that means denying trump the presidency by hook or by crook! But I am NOT happy about the cavalier way it's been spoken of that R's will join us in the Harris administration. It looks yukky, and we're suppose to be getting these r's OUT of office... not putting them in! That way, we MIGHT be able to get some progressive legislation passed?
Martin68
(24,732 posts)Clouds Passing
(2,702 posts)Mz Pip
(27,935 posts)and post offices? Are they off limits, too?
I dont understand the logic of keeping someone from dropping off a bunch of ballots in a drop box. Certainly, there are Republicans who are disabled and housebound. How are these ballots supposed to get delivered?
LibinMo
(561 posts)jvill
(402 posts)...