Temporary restraining order reimposed in Ohio voting scandal

Clarice Feldman
It looks like ACORN and the Ohio Secretary of State will not be able to guarantee a fixed election after all. The Darke Blog explains:

[a] 3-judge panel of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals recently vacated a temporary restraining order which would effectively make Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner follow the law - and do her job - in preventing election fraud. Tonight, the full court decided to hear the case en banc, and has reimposed the TRO. This is great news.

Here are some highlights:

"So far as this record is concerned, the Secretary has given no tenable exlanation why her current interpretation of the statute, as opposed to the office's prior implementation of the law, remotely furthers the anti-fraud objective of the law."

The Ohio Republican Party's position is "not only sensible but it is also fair - and it also furthers both objectives of HAVA ..."

The court mocks Brunner's defense as "[t]he bureaucrats' lament - that this will be difficult to do."

UPDATE: In looking at the decision, it appears the full court voted 9-6 to hear the case en banc (which means all of them). I'd say the 9-6 vote is a good sign, but doesn't necessarily mean the case will end that way. Tonight's decision has been described as the opportunity to "live and fight another day." But in the world of temporary restraining orders, if you have it, that's all that matters for the time being. And the time being is what is crucial right now.

It looks like ACORN and the Ohio Secretary of State will not be able to guarantee a fixed election after all. The Darke Blog explains:

[a] 3-judge panel of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals recently vacated a temporary restraining order which would effectively make Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner follow the law - and do her job - in preventing election fraud. Tonight, the full court decided to hear the case en banc, and has reimposed the TRO. This is great news.

Here are some highlights:

"So far as this record is concerned, the Secretary has given no tenable exlanation why her current interpretation of the statute, as opposed to the office's prior implementation of the law, remotely furthers the anti-fraud objective of the law."

The Ohio Republican Party's position is "not only sensible but it is also fair - and it also furthers both objectives of HAVA ..."

The court mocks Brunner's defense as "[t]he bureaucrats' lament - that this will be difficult to do."

UPDATE: In looking at the decision, it appears the full court voted 9-6 to hear the case en banc (which means all of them). I'd say the 9-6 vote is a good sign, but doesn't necessarily mean the case will end that way. Tonight's decision has been described as the opportunity to "live and fight another day." But in the world of temporary restraining orders, if you have it, that's all that matters for the time being. And the time being is what is crucial right now.