To Be or Not to Be? Ohio Democrats Inducing Voter Fraud?

There is a controversy concerning absentee ballots brewing in Ohio.  According to the Columbus Dispatch, Republican lawmakers are concerned that Ohio Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner, has instructed voters to break Ohio law, which states that voters must be registered for 30 days prior to casting a vote to be considered a qualified elector.   GOP officials claim that allowing Ohioans to register and cast an absentee ballot on the same day violates the law.  However, Brunner claims that what controls under current law is when the ballots are counted, not when they are cast.  She released a statement addressing the issue:

Statement:

We must be sure that every qualified Ohioan has the chance to register and the choice to vote early or on Election Day.

The overlap between the end of voter registration and the beginning of absentee voting was created by the General Assembly, signed into law by a Republican governor, and has existed for all Ohio voters since the 2006 primary election. Those Ohioans who register to vote and request an absentee ballot during the 5-day overlap must abide by the same voter registration, absentee ballot and voter identification laws as any other Ohio voters.

To clarify some people's concerns, Secretary Brunner has issued a directive that will create consistent, statewide standards for this overlap.

To be clear, there is only one general election day. This year, that's November 4, 2008.

Anyone registered to vote by the October 6, 2008, deadline may request and submit an absentee ballot. That ballot is not permitted by law to be counted until the close of polls on Election Day, along with all other ballots.

Some are arguing for the first time that this is not the case. The law has not changed.

This unusual interpretation of Ohio law would inject chaos into our voting system, just as we are preparing for success with bipartisan elections officials across Ohio.

Last time I checked, she does not sit on a court of law, and Democrats are well known for creating law that suits their political aims as opposed to following actual law or even the intent of the law.  And why does it matter whether a Republican signed a bill into law or not? 

Many political pundits believe this law will help Obama, because it will allow younger voters who are notorious for failing to show up on election days to cast their vote and register on the same day.  These younger voters heavily favor Obama.  Jennifer Brunner is obviously just concerned about the law.  She could not possibly be partial towards Barack Obama.  She's a Democrat.  They don't have interests, only constituents.

Now, let's take a look at the actual laws that are under scrutiny to determine what's going on.  Ohio Code 3503.01 is at issue.  It reads as follows (author's brackets for emphasis):

Every citizen of the United States who is of the [age of eighteen years or over and who has been a resident of the state thirty days immediately preceding the election at which the citizen offers to vote], is a resident of the county and precinct in which the citizen offers to vote, and [has been registered to vote for thirty days, has the qualifications of an elector and may vote at all elections in the precinct in which the citizen resides].

Since this portion of the code does not explicitly state what controls under the law (the day of the vote or the day it's counted), another portion of the code is needed to determine that matter.  The controlling law is Ohio Code 3509.03.  It concerns proper registration for absentee voters.  These are the requirements under that portion of the Code (author's brackets for emphasis and editing):

(A) The elector’s name; [B] The elector’s signature; (C) The address at which the elector is registered to vote; (D) The elector’s date of birth; (E) One of the following:

(1) The elector’s driver’s license number; (2) The last four digits of the elector’s social security number; (3) A copy of the elector’s current and valid photo identification, a copy of a military identification that shows the elector’s name and current address, or a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document, other than a notice of an election mailed by a board of elections under section 3501.19 of the Revised Code or a notice of voter registration mailed by a board of elections under section 3503.19 of the Revised Code, that shows the name and address of the elector.

[(G) A statement that the person requesting the ballots is a qualified elector;]

Section (G) is the most relevant portion dealing with the controversy.  A person must be a qualified elector in order to file an application for an absentee ballot.  As we know from Ohio 3503.01 above, a person cannot be a qualified elector if he or she has not been registered for 30 days prior to casting the vote.  How can a person who is registering on the very same day that he or she files an application for an absentee vote be a qualified elector when he or she has not even been registered for one day?  Notice, section (G) does not say "will be" a qualified elector, but rather "is" a qualified elector.  The language is explicitly in the present tense as intended by the legislature and cannot be construed as otherwise by the Ohio Secretary of State.  Thus, the emphasis is on the day of application, not some future date when the vote will be counted.  According to this section, if a person is not a qualified elector on the day of application, then he or she cannot fulfill all of the requirements of the Code, meaning he or she is not a qualified elector.  If someone files a statement saying he or she is a a qualified elector when it is in fact not true, this is voter fraud, which is a fourth degree felony in Ohio.  This means that Brunner would be telling people to knowingly cast an illegal vote in the election.  Wonder why the GOP is threatening a lawsuit?    

Unfortunately for the GOP, the media will be out in full force behind their golden boy and messiah, Mr. Obama, to claim that this amounts to suppressing the votes of young people, the poor, and minorities.  Is there any truth behind it?  No, but that will not stop demagogues who have no respect for the rule of law.  For the party that claims there is so much voter fraud and intimidation on the Republicans' side to resort to the very tactics it decries is sheer hypocrisy.  Unless Bill Clinton is around to redefine the meaning of "is," I don't see how this statute can be construed as Brunner suggests is should be.  Then again, I'm sure there is some liberal justice out there who will be willing to give new meaning to Shakespeare's "To be or not to be."