Stop voter suppression

Mar 3, 2014

Early voting has proved two things in an abundantly clear way: More Ohio residents vote when voting hours are extended; and Republicans don't like that.

Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted, who is running for re-election on the fall ballot against Cuyahoga County Democrat Nina Turner, approved uniform hours for all 88 Ohio counties last month, eliminating evening hours and Sunday voting.

Husted cut Sunday voting completely and eliminated evening hours and five open days from the voting calendar. If Husted's order sticks, he will have successfully suppressed thousands of Democratic votes in Ohio's largest county, likely guaranteeing himself a win in November.

A leader in GOP-dominated Ohio Legislature for eight years before getting elected secretary of state, Husted's office is responsible for all election-related regulation. He is level-headed, thoughtful and articulate and has the ability to detail the reasonings for his positions in a powerful and persuasive way.

But not on this issue.

He was the water boy for the national GOP in 2012, working for Mitt Romney's campaign in a fervent effort to suppress Ohio's vote in Romney's favor. If it had worked, Husted probably would be in Romeny's cabinet if other efforts in other states to tilt the vote had worked.

Republicans have pushed voter suppression efforts for far too long, and it needs to stop.

They would be better served honing the appeal and focus on their ideas to craft legislation that can move the state forward. Republican lawmakers have success and a better appeal to voters when they choose that path.



Got to agree with you contango. The Left Wing Liberals are drinking too much of Obama's Cool Ade.

Little Giant

Contango you are beyond ignorant because if you were even half as smart as you claim you are you would be aware that in the recent election in Texas that there was even a candidate that did not have the proper id to vote. So let me get your argument straight you claim that "if it can happen it will happen" except no legal voters will not be denied to vote? Now that is pretty stupid!

Little Giant

Iowa recently did an extensive investigation of voter fraud. They found 5 cases out of millions of votes. None of which would have been caught with voter id laws. Just more proof about what this is all about.


Little Giant; "Yup!"


Pooh get your own paper. Call it know- it- all. kia. We really laughed at you today!

The New World Czar

For the record, per Erie County Board of Elections:
Tim Parkison, publisher Party: DEM Prec : 0001/1
Matt Westerhold, managing editor Party: DEM Prec : 0022/1
Mike Schaffer, chief design editor Party: REP Prec : 0041/1
Mark Yocum, advertising director Not listed
Kathy Lilje, features editor Party: DEM Prec : 0011/1
Latasha Webb, home delivery manager Party: --- Prec : 0014/1

For the sake of credibility, how about a disclaimer next time the Register editorial board "reflects" its "MAJORITY" opinion???

Matt Westerhold

Thanks for the listing The New World Czar. One has to choose a Party doesn't one if they want to vote in a primary in a county that elects many more Democrats than Republicans. You've successfully accessed public records to determine the editorial board has done that and identified us as three Democrats; one Republican and one independent. There's no disclaimer necessary as to who we vote for in the General Election since this is a private matter. That's the American way, isn't it? That's kind of how it works. I notice you didn't offer a disclaimer identifying your Party with your own editorial comment. Sort of a "do as I say not as I do" attitude there? What's next? Are you going to ask us to "show (you) our papers!" It might be better if you could articulate your objections to the points made in this editorial rather than making "Czar"-like demands that people identify themselves with a Party in order to express an opinion. Seems a bit of an anti-American approach there, but maybe that's just me.

The New World Czar

Disclaimer- I am a registered Republican...another posted fact.

Anti-American? Resort to name-calling when you don't have anything else to debate on.

Finally, one more fact..."Independent", not "independant".

Matt Westerhold

Thanks Czar. I fixed the typo. I think if you re-read the comment you will see there was no name-calling. It states your suggestion seemed anti-American to me. I'm entitled to an opinion. I guess you're entitled to mistate it, but that doesn't seem right. And again, you avoid addressing the content and prefer instead to simply attack the messenger. Now, show me your papers!

The New World Czar

I'm getting mixed up by your responses...
a. What's next? Are you going to ask us to "show (you) our papers!"
b. Now, show me your papers!

Seriously, is it the mission of the SR editorial staff to represent its views to the community and readers or is it the goal to give some of us reason to shake our heads in disbelief...or some of both? Either way, being able to debate in a civil way is what makes this country great, correct?

Finally, odds are you'll ask sooner than later, but I've been watching Hannity on FNC for the last hour.

Matt Westerhold

Read your own comments carefully Czar, and I think you might find your answers. And again, you fail to address the content and seek to discredit the writers and the opinion expressed rather than debate the information. Go ahead, shake your head. 

The New World Czar

In this case I can't help but shake my head.

In one paragraph you refer to him as "level-headed, thoughtful, and articulate" and then later refer to him as "the water boy for the national GOP in 2012".

Yes, Matt- when you set out discredit someone like this for setting a reasonable statewide standard, then you set yourself up for discredit and ridicule...especially when the majority of those on your editorial board have a "D" behind their name.


Re: "there was no name-calling."

Perhaps not; but your use of pejoratives and insulting language certainly reflect your journalistic standards.

Kinda strange; I hit the abuse link on those posts where the bloggers DID name-call others and they remain.

A case of double standard or plain ol' hypocrisy?

Dr. Information

The SR and its editors are nothing but sheep to a very hypocritical newspaper. They don't moderate their site one iota, let people cuss, name call and make personal threats and have a 9 to 1 ratio of liberal supporting articles vs conservative.

Their constant Rolodex of gay, race baiting, anti anything republican/conservative, loving Obama and Dem articles says a lot about this paper and how well they fall into the category of just another liberal media outlet.

The Norwalk paper moderates its forum, hence the reason you do not see a lot of the posters that post on here, posting on Norwalks forum. They have either been booted, banned or are just tired of being moderated because they post like 2 year olds in a verbal spat.

The Big Dog's back

How to know when a right wingnut lost an argument? When your facts shoot down their paper lion and then they accuse you of name calling.


Moderators have removed this comment because it contained Personal attacks (including: name calling, presumption of guilt or guilt by association, insensitivity, or picking fights).


A nation must have faith in the honesty of its institutions in order to survive. We have already lost faith in the IRS, the EPA and the Justice Dept., which seem more concerned with pushing an agenda than the rights of the individual. (I find it ironic that the same person who gets livid over so-called voter suppression is silent when the highest law enforcement officer in the country says he can pick and choose which laws to enforce.) If we lose our faith in the election process we will have anarchy - think South American Banana Republic elections. When I go to the polls I want to know that my vote will not cancelled out by fraud. That doesn't seem to be too much to ask from a nation founded on the principle of one person/one vote.


ohioengineer; "That doesn't seem to be to be too much to ask from a nation founded on the principle of one person/one vote." I agree. Where do you stand on "Citizens United"? (This is a serious question looking for a politically unbiased reply.) Thanks. PB&J


Re: "'Citizens United'"

As long as the progressive-socialists are busy shaking down businesses, it makes sense to me.

Anyway, SCOTUS has ruled in favor of it - deal with it.

Dr. Information

Why can't they just settle it out and make a statewide rule. Polls open early 4-5 days before the election day. Thats plenty of time to vote early.


hmmm...sounds like this "Register editorial board" lean...just a little..."left". Not sure why we need to establish days and days and days to vote...and waste tax payer dollars. Absentee ballot is easy to do. Heck, back in the day of horse and buggies...they on got one day to vote. Not sure what makes it sooo much harder to vote now. This article took up a minute of my life that I will never get back!


I don't have an issue with verifiable voter identification based upon its principle. Maybe even make it a federal standard rather than "state by state" modification. was the guise of a "massive voter fraud" theme that was used that sets a bad tone. Now too it has escalated into fewer days to vote, etc. etc. Combined definitely has a voter suppression ring to it of is. Maybe we should be discussing "Citizens United". Now THERE is fraud at a truly MASSIVE scale.


Re: "Maybe even make it a federal standard rather than 'state by state' modification."

Not in the Constitution and therefore a 10th Amend. issue.


Still complaining eh Dave?


In what way does absentee voting not cover all the reasons for extended voting hours and days? If you have trouble making it to vote on election day, simply get an absentee ballot and vote. Problem solved, with the mechinism already in use and widely accepted. Why spend more to keep polling places open and staffed, for days and night on end. Vote absentee and be done with it if you aren't sure you can get to the polls when they are open, QED. It ain't rocket science.


It's rather "odd" that now, all of a sudden, we need to change the voting rules based upon massive voter fraud.


Yes it is hard to believe that times change and things need to evolve as time goes by. Hard to understand that things don't stay the same year after year decade after decade. I have to saddle up the horse and go get some more whale oil for the lamps before we run out.


Hey Grump, Did you ever hear the phrase, "If it ain't broke...don't fix it?" So...grab your pony and ride fast before the whales are extinct. Oh wait! The Republicans don't back environmental concerns. That WOULD be too progressive (times change and things evolve)
("Hard to understand that people stay the same year after year decade after decade."), (grumpy is evidence of that.)
Is that REALLY the best you can do grumpy? I feel sorry for you.


Re: "'If it ain't broke...don't fix it?'"

What about preventive maintenance?

Murphy's Law: If it can happen, it will happen.

The 'bought and paid for' 1960 pres. election wasn't that long ago.

Move to web-based voting and then maybe both the Dumb and Dumber parties can be happy.


grumpy, Reread my post. It was about the supposed "massive voter fraud". You either missed that part or....ignored it as you didn't have an intelligent retort. (retort; "reply", "answer", "argument")