Republicans in Ohio Attempting to Help Themselves to Election Results

From the Associated Press:  "Two Libertarian candidates were tossed from Ohio's primary ballot on Friday by Secretary of State John Husted in a ruling that sparked immediate plans for a legal challenge."

what eye thynk:  Late last year, I wrote about how Republicans saw secondary political parties like the Libertarians and the Green Party as weakening their chances for victory in the ballot box and how Republican led state legislatures were passing bills to limit those influences. http://whateyethynk-politics.blogspot.com/2013/11/eye-recommend-republicans-target-minor.html

Ohio's Republican led legislature, fearing that Libertarian or Green Party candidates would siphon off votes that otherwise would go to Republican candidates, passed a bill that all but eliminated the chance for third party candidates to be represented on state ballots.  Opponents of Governor John Kasich (R) called it the "John Kasich Re-election Protection Act."  

Several parts of the new bill were struck down by a federal judge in January of this year; but that hasn't stopped Republicans from continuing the fight to keep candidates they see as a threat off the ballot.

It should be noted that Mr. Husted (R) has made controversial election rulings in the past only to have them struck down by federal courts. During the 2012 election, he attempted to limit early voting hours at Board of Election offices in Ohio's urban areas.  He also attempted to eliminate Sunday-before-election special voting hours which are popular with minority church goers who board buses after services and go to the Board of Elections together to record their votes. These rulings were overturned by federal judges who saw the restrictions as attempts to prohibit mostly Democratic minorities in the Northeast part of the state from voting. 

In his latest challenge to Ohio's voting process, Mr. Husted removed Libertarian candidates Charlie Earl, who is running for governor, and Steven Linnabary, a challenger for his own office.  He stated that their signature gatherers did not comply with Ohio law that says signature gatherers must be Independent or a member of their proposed candidate's party.  He also noted that some signature gatherers did not name their employer when they filed their paperwork.

I'm of two minds on the first challenge:  1. Yes, it is possible that Democrats could attempt to get third party candidates on the ballot in the hope that they would take votes from Republicans; but those same candidates could also easily take votes from Democrats. 2. On the other hand, why should the party affiliation of the signature gatherer make any difference at all?  Party affiliation is not a factor in who actually signs the petition, so why should the gatherer's party be a factor?   If you're a Republican and you don't want to sign a petition supporting a Green Party candidate, then don't sign it.  Personally, I would be happy to sign a Green Party's petition because I think every party should be represented.  At the same time, I wouldn't vote for one because I find their party platform too narrow.   However, this party affiliation requirement is Ohio law and even though I may not agree with it, the court would have to strike down the law before Mr. Husted could be stopped from using the requirement to challenge third party candidates.  In the meantime, Mr. Husted better be able to prove his allegations.

Mr. Husted's second challenge--that signature takers name their employer--makes little sense outside of Republican paranoia that Democrats are out to sabotage them.  There is no state requirement that a signature gatherer--or, for that matter, a candidate--be employed at all; so why should a lack of employer information be a reason to discard a petition for candidacy?

Matthew Borges, Ohio Republican Party state chairman, told reporters that Republican Party officials had helped "to mount the challenge to Mr. Earl's signature-gathering effort" beginning with the claim that he may have been assisted by registered Democrats.

The Republican argument seems to be that Democrats are attempting to influence elections--unlike Republicans who see nothing wrong with attempting to influence election outcomes by eliminating voting opportunities in highly Democratic districts.  Or by helping to "mount the challenge to Mr. Earl's signature-gathering effort."

Mark Brown, a lawyer for the Libertarian Party of Ohio, said the ballot protests are nothing more than an extension of Republican efforts to keep third party candidates off the ballot in order to protect Gov. Kasich's re-election bid. An appeal to Mr. Husted's decision is planned.

The one question I'd really like to ask a Republican--any Republican--is "When did you stop believing in the efficacy of our democratic electoral system?"

If Republicans see their chances of winning an election as so weak that they need to create new ways to keep opposing candidates off the ballot or opposing voters away from the polls, then they must also admit that they are not the popular choice and should--if they believe in our Democratic system--deserve to be defeated.  

So, Republicans, what are you afraid of--that you'll lose or that the people will win?