Ohio group backs amendment for voter protections

A coalition of black lawmakers, clergy and civil rights leaders are backing an Ohio constitutional amendment guaranteeing certain voter protections in the perennial battleground.
Associated Press
Jan 17, 2014

The Voter Bill of Rights was launched Thursday ahead of Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

Ohio Legislative Black Caucus president Alicia Reece told attendees at a Columbus rally to collect signatures for the proposal in the spirit of King.

The measure would expand early voting times on weekends and make other changes. The effort responds to a June decision by the U.S. Supreme Court striking down a section of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. A bevy of states have toughened voter laws since the ruling.

Proponents said such measures guard against voter fraud. Critics said the new restrictions are aimed at suppressing low-income voters, particularly minorities.



Would someone please explain how voter's would be suppressed?


Since you are a repub it figures you woud say that !! ;o)

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

I'm actually curious, too. Can you explain it? I'm not a Republican so maybe I can understand the nuances that are somehow incomprehensible to a party affiliation?

Meanwhile, we are told that we MUST embrace and trust Iran 100% else you are a warmonger and will be summoned to the White House to be corrected. But trust a portion of the United States based on a cultural history that has since been changed from 60 years ago? Heck no, they say!

Give peace with America a chance!


You are white you would not understand. Simple fact is they do not understand it either but the hear that it would make their vote worth more. Not sayin it is racist or anything.


I don't understand how whites can tell others what they think especially the whites who hate non whites.


I find the black caucus racist, why not have a white caucus? we have miss black america, why not miss white america, you have the united negro college fund, why not a untied white college fund? Look in the mirror if u want to see the true racist, the one who screams racism the most is the true racist


Who told you to trust Iran? What is the cultural history that has been changed racism when did it change?

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Our President, as even the Huffington Post reports, has called out fellow Democrats (let alone Republicans) as warmongers if they support sanctions against Iran. A few days ago he invited the dissenting Democratic senators to the White House and, as the report went on to say, after whatever magical meeting happened there they are all now in line with the president.

Meanwhile, in the South, I can't say the last time I saw a report of a public lynching, Congressional members as overt members of the KKK, fire hoses turned on people, or separate restrooms and drinking fountains for X or Y race. Yet there is a ceaseless harkening to that time as if it still happened in front of God and everyone every day in every town in every Southern state.

As for when it changed? Over the past (nearly) SEVENTY years! Depending on how you define a generation that is about 3 generations of Americans that have been born, grown up, or matured in that time. Are there still overt racists? Yes, but that will never go away completely. Is the institutionalized racism there? No, and if you can point to a bill that explicitly punishes one race instead of another I will be happy to examine it.

So this leads to my comment on how we are told that we MUST trust Iran, yet the same ruling class actively promotes the distrust of fellow states in the union. I find it disingenuous. Also as a younger person I am personally sick and tired of being drug screaming back over fifty years to a mentality that is nowhere near a prevalent/institutionalized as it was. Growing up in Florida I wasn't raised to hate X, avoid Y, or not sit next to Z. I didn't see separate facilities in school. Not only for that but for simple humanitarian reasons I don't condone that kind of segregationist behavior from government.


Limiting the number of places to vote as well as shortening the times that you can vote are both aimed at suppressing certain people's right to vote. People, yes even minorities, have lives to live, jobs to work, children to care for and need time to worship. Someone that has a job to go to or whatever should not have to wait hours to vote. The urban areas get the broken down equipment, shortened hours to vote and so on and so on. It is very obvious and insulting to minorities that some pretend otherwise. Minorities are not stupid, uneducated people and do not lack common sense.


Re: "Limiting the number of places to vote as well as shortening the times that you can vote are both aimed at suppressing certain people's right to vote."

A tired old argument.

Early voting and voting by mail is eliminating many of those issues.

Wait until web based voting takes off!

Then, the progressive-socialists will find something else to bitch about.


Early voting and absentee voting has also been cut back. Tired is right but the argument is still true. Don't you think some are TIRED of fighting for something they were guaranteed?


Re: "Early voting and absentee voting has also been cut back."

Looks pretty extensive to me:


Where's your proof?


Did you see the lines in Cuyahoga county? That's extensive!


Re: "Did you see the lines in Cuyahoga county?"

Why did they wait so long to vote?

Again: Where's your proof, Cupcake?


deertracker, FREE phones were offered.


So you are saying that up until the last 10 yrs that voting laws, that were overwhelmingly backed by most democrats were suppressing the vote? I noticed that the big push to allow free for all voting with little to no rules has been directly correlated to the decrease in power by democrats. As for your comment about urban areas getting broken down equipment, apparently you've never lived in a urban area. I have, and they all had top of the line equipment. Out here in the rural area I live in is where the outdated equipment is at. Which is fine, we don't need fancy equipment that tells us how to vote because we are smart enough to figure it out on our own.

"Minorities are not stupid, uneducated people and do not lack common sense."

It would depend on which minority group you are speaking of. Per a study published on PBS website. 47% of black 17 yr olds are functionally illiterate." I would say that makes your statement...well...wrong!


How many black 17 yr. olds do you know that are functionally illiterate? How many 17 yr. olds do you know that vote? You are right, I have never lived in a REAL urban area or rural area but I have always been Black! I would say that makes you....well...clueless!

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Has it been stated that the limitations are in place to suppress "certain people"? What is the claimed reason? Knowing that it is perfectly logical to ask questions and look into it more. That is a practice I exercise commonly here. But has anyone said in a bill or behind a podium, "We're reducing our locations because people darker than a paper bag need to be silenced!"?

The reason I personally ask so many questions is because I enjoy learning and trying to figure things out. Otherwise the unknown causes fear and superstition. Rumors. Paranoia. Misunderstanding. So applying that to what you said as above, not even discounting it as false:

1. What are the stated reasons for shortened times and locations? Is it because the current locations are unfit in some way? Not accessible? Dangerous? Unnecessarily underpopulated?

2. What are the statistics on the the consistency of broken down equipment to a voting location? Are broken machines in every "urban" voting place? If so, why and who is responsible for their purchases/upkeep? If a polling location isn't up to standards then it should be reported!

There's a lot to the voting process that I personally don't like such as on the spot registration/voting. When I was at a certain campaign headquarters the tactics of telling people about the candidate and getting them to register and vote on the spot, early mind you, was being taught. Of course I would expect that these recruiters only had good things to say about their candidate, bad things about the opponent, and could say things to get a person fired up about an issue, lock in their vote, and have no way to retract it after it had been cast in case certain things came to light.

Let's not forget the organizations, celebrities, etc. who provide voting parties to people and will wine/dine them then give them rides to the polling location after heavy doses of one side of an issue or candidate. But just as the examples above of my distaste are anecdotal or don't have positive proof, I can't just go around stating my opinion as fact that all campaign supporters manipulate uninformed people to get passionate votes nor that votes are being bought with money and charisma.

Pterocarya frax...

"Has it been stated that the limitations are in place to suppress "certain people"?"

Read the quotes in this article from Phyllis Schlafly, Jim Greer, and Mike Turzai, and then come back and answer your own question:


Spend more time reading from a variety of sources, instead of blathering so much, and you will understand.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

So after reading that AND the other articles from the same source it links to:

1. Phyllis Schlafly is asserting her opinion as a non-lawmaker.
2. Jim Greer seems to have been rightfully caught for being a scumbag that abused his own party. What?! Opportunistic scumbags in the Republican party? Perish the thought!
3. Mike Turzai? Pandering to his political party by assuaging their fears that the big, bad Democrats won't win because of something he is supposedly doing to bolster his own reputation.

Party, party, party. Blather, blather, blather. Hibbity-jibbity, gobbledy-googily. So what you presented is further evidence of why party-first mentality is destructive and harmful to people. I'm glad to see that Jim Greer got in trouble for his actions. As for the comments made by the other two? Callous, partisan observations meant to be a warm blanket/attention-getter among a "friendly" crowd.

I don't know what more you want. Democrats pander to their base, too, and it is just as disappointing and destructive. If a bill is put forward to specifically suppress someone that is wrong. But if it isn't, anyone can say anything about it whether they think it is so or not. There are many opinionated people in each party that do a lot of their own blathering.

The Republican party is dying for a reason (the examples above are part of it, but there are more) and hopefully so too will the Democratic party follow it so we can actually advance as a society with laws that are good for all. I have actually tried to do something about not just them but the Democratic one, too, but for some reason I continually get no responses back from leadership.

To address your snip about my variety? Most of my read news comes from either here or the Huffington Post, which as you may be aware is probably only slightly less biased than the website to which you sent me. Hopefully if anyone ever cites a Fox News source you won't make fun of them for it. But I accept your links, read them and others, because I am not afraid of biased news because they at least have the decency to tell you beforehand what their slant is as you figure out the story.

Which conservative news outlets do you read? Maybe we can compare and discuss stories. I'll read you mine if you read me yours.

Pterocarya frax...

There is zero coincidence that since the US Supreme Court struck down most of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, that 35 states have enacted or introduced legislation to restrict voting rights in some manner.

Voter suppression takes many forms, but the basic intent is to try to keep certain people from voting. Often, those certain people are blacks, or other minorities, or poor people.

Just because many of you have never lived outside the north central Ohio area, there is a great big world out there that is very different than yours. Poor people have a more difficult time getting to the polls, so attempts to limit voting hours and absentee voting are common. There are multiple cases in a couple southern states where polling stations have been moved to areas far away from college campuses and bus lines to make access more difficult. There are many cases of spreading flyers and handbills advertising the wrong day to vote. There are many other subtle forms like these mentioned, but they all are aimed at keeping certain segments of the population from voting.

But the big one that Republicans constantly crow about is voter ID laws. The Pennsylvania voter ID law was just struck down in court because of the lack of availability of ID. 750,000 people in that state don't have the ID necessary to vote. I know you say they should run out to the BMV and get it...right? Well again, many of them don't have the transportation, or time, or money, to do it. But the bigger problem is, how are they going to get an ID printed if they don't have a way to prove who they are. Many of these people don't have a passport, or even a birth certificate.

What it boils down to is that as the population ages and becomes more diverse is that the Republican party base is shrinking. So they think if they can keep enough of the other part's base from voting, they can still win elections. In the short term, that has somewhat worked for them, but it is a pretty lousy long term strategy. If Republicans want to be effective down the road, they need to look at widening their base.

There...a couple of you asked, so there it is. I suggest you read this to understand it better:



Thank you for that thoughtful lesson. Now perhaps you can help assuage my concerns about voter fraud? Perhaps you'll explain that any reports of alleged fraud are anecdotal. Reports of long time poll workers 'helping' friends and family members make sure they aren't disenfranchised by voting for them.... or developmentally disabled adults being escorted to the polls and in some cases refusing to cast 'their' ballot because they didn't want to give them up. Will you tell me "there's nothing to see here, move along"?
And then explain how these measures to expand the opportunity to exercise our franchise doesn't also expand the opportunity for fraud?

Pterocarya frax...


Out of 5.63 million votes cast in the 2012 election in Ohio, 135 cases of possible voter fraud were found, and referred for possible prosecution. How many of those are guilty...I couldn't find that. 20 of those were people that voted in Ohio and another state...so basically old people that live here part of the year and go to Florida and vote from their home there, because they forgot they mailed in their absentee ballot from Ohio.

How many of the rest true fraud cases would be stopped by strict ID laws? I don't know, but from your perspective I am sure it must be millions.

But you are correct. The best way to wipe out voter fraud would be one day to vote only, and you dip your thumb in purple ink. Then the only way to cheat is to cut your thumb off!


Re: "dip your thumb in purple ink."

The (bleepin') progressive-socialists would REALLY be howling with THAT one. :)

Gotta agree; I'd rather just show a (bleepin') ID.


Re: "There is zero coincidence (snip)"

I have no problem showing an official picture ID or voter registration card in order to vote, why should you?

H*ll, when I check into a hotel or often when I use a credit card, I'm asked for ID. OK with me.

Pterocarya frax...

You sound more like a Republican every day.

"Pro-Second Amendment? The Castle Doctrine, it's done. First pro-life legislation - abortion facility regulations - in 22 years, done. Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done,"...Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai (R) in June, 2012


Re: "You sound more like a Republican every day."

Independent - fiscal conservative, social liberal.

So tell me again that as a believer in big govt. as to how you're not a socialist? :)


Pooh, every time you get clearly out smarted and out classed in your attempt to make a point, you attack. If you are a fraction as smart as you think you are, you have to see what's really going on here. Suppression!!!!!!!!!!!! You actually sound like you are far right of even the Tea party.


Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. Every time you are outclassed and outsmarted (which is easy to do, and frequent), you throw out the tea party epithet.


Re: "tea party,"

Tea parties and libertarians (classical liberalism) share many common values and beliefs, but they are NOT synonymous.

I still remember watching Rick Santelli the day he first helped to coin the term:


Some days I miss the ol' Chicago "in your face" attitude. :)