ProgressOhio: "If Jennifer Brunner isn't willing to ignore the law and play our partisan games, she's a coward!"

In 2006, a group of conservatives, including an RNC member/lawyer from PA, attempted to save the Blackwell for Governor campaign from itself and the outrage of Ohio voters disgusted with Republican rule in Ohio by challenging the legitimacy of Governor Ted Strickland, and thus, ultimately his eligibility to be sworn into office.

At the time, I said that purely as a matter of law the elections statute's standard for what can constitute as a "residency" was so flexible, that it's a stretch to say there was any legal basis for the complaint.

ProgressOhio has been pushing the State Senator Jon Husted story hard.  I've only said that people like Bizzyblog who were so quick with the felony allegations when it was Strickland are showing their partisan nonsense with their utter silence on Husted.

I've watched Husted's testimony and I've read, I believe, every news article reporting on the evidence.  As a lawyer, my conclusion is the same for Husted as it was for Strickland.

Brian Rothenberg, the Executive Director of ProgressOhio, in a recent column that practically nobody reads mocked Husted's claim that Husted fell under "some sort" of exemption as a result of his state employment.

The problem with ProgressOhio, which brought the complaint against Husted, is that Husted is absolutely correct as a matter of law.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Ohio Revised Code 3503.02(G), which states:

If a person removes from this state to engage in the services of the United States government, the person shall not be considered to have lost the person's residence in this state during the period of such service, and likewise should the person enter the employment of the state, the place where such person resided at the time of the person's removal shall be considered to be the person's place of residence.

This is the "exemption" that Rothenbreg has mocked like it was non-existent.   Of course, Rothernberg isn't a lawyer; neither is Dave Harding, which is why they might have had a hard time finding that in a statute misleadingly captioned: "Residence determination rules."

The Ohio Supreme Court, in an opinion written by future U.S. Chief Justice Taft, has ruled that under Ohio's election laws a person must be registered at a residence.  However, while a person can have only one domicile, a person can have more than one residence at the time.  Therefore, it doesn't matter whether Jon Husted picks up his newspapers every morning in his favorite bunny slippers or runs the water all the time.  He can legally use his current address for his voting residence because he owns the property and professes the intent to return their there (see also subsection (B).)

But what is really causing me to scratch my head is this simply bizarre post by Dave Harding today that's he been pushing the rest of us to pay attention to:

Secretary Brunner, will you stand up for equal enforcement of the voting laws of the State of Ohio or will you show political deference to the powerful Republican politician?

Demonstrate why you won last year's John F Kennedy Profile In Courage Award and  do what is right giving equal justice to all and not what is political in the Husted case. We're counting on you!

I don't get the gaunltet that Harding is throwing down.  He's pretending that the only reason Brunner might rule against ProgressOhio's complaint is not because they've failed to prove the legal standard, but because she's somehow a "coward" to stand up to an influential Republican politician?  Even though that was the some politician she routinely was standing up to when it came to the "Golden Week" of early voting and countless other election issues just... last.... year?

Dave, I'll give ProgressOhio credit for revealing just how embarrassingly little Husted is ever even near his house.  However, that's not the legal standard for disqualifying a person's voting residence as we all should have learn from the Strickland challenge farce.

If Brunner decides against you, it's not because she's suddenly a "coward."  It's because as the law is presently stated, Husted has several defenses against your organization's partisan complaint that have merit.

I just don't understand why Harding is throwing down the "coward" gauntlet over this issue.  The infallibility of ProgressOhio is just simply arrogant and undeserved on this one. 

If you were outraged by the idea of Ken Blackwell ruling that Ted Strickland is ineligible to serve as Governor in 2006 because he and Frances also owned a condo in Columbus and Frances worked for the ODP in Columbus, then you can't suddenly say that there's no way Brunner could not legally find that the Husted complaint lacks merit, too.  There's no logical way a person could come to those two differing outcomes in these two cases.  It's just partisan hypocrisy.

[UPDATE:]  Tim points out that two members of ProgressOhio's board are well-known Fisher folks (I don't know because it's all NEO politics to me, but Dave Harding hasn't really denied it.  He denies that they had anything to do with his post.  But since he works for them the appearance of it all stinks to high heaven.  If Tim's alternative theory is that Dave just slammed Brunner as a way to drive up his traffic, I think it's incredibly short-sighted of him.  I'll leave it to Dave to decide if he should rethink the wisdom of suggesting that Brunner is a "coward" unless she does ProgressOhio's bidding.  Frankly, I think the opposite appears to be more true.