Will Bill Mason indict Rush Limbaugh in Ohio?
Submitted by Tim Russo on Fri, 03/21/2008 - 10:25am.
One can only pray for such joyous wonder.
While this all makes for great talk radio and sounds like fun, there is one catch: What Limbaugh encouraged Republican voters to do in Ohio was a fifth-degree felony in that state, punishable with a $2,500 fine and six to 12 months in jail.
C'mon, Marc Dann. Make a name for yourself. Oh wait.....maybe Bill Mason!
"We will not make a blanket statement that we would never pursue a case such as that, but it would be our position that a case such as that would be very hard to prosecute," said Ted Hart, spokesman for Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann, who added that a senior attorney in his office said it would be difficult to ascertain voters' motives on particular days. "The county prosecutor would have the first right of refusal."
Sounds like a good case to me, Bill!
"Here we have a real instance of spurring people on to engage in illegal election activities with a real intent to affect the outcome," Slater said. "That is voter fraud. People were encouraged to break the law. They had to declare allegiance to a political party and sign a document under penalty of perjury. Intent is what matters in voter fraud."
The last place on earth you want to be is between Bill Mason and a high profile indictment.
So a jury or a judge would
Submitted by Magi1 on Fri, 03/21/2008 - 11:05pm.
So a jury or a judge would make the determination? I wonder how the trial would play out? Would they check how the person voted in the past? Would they look at contributions? Have friends and family testify? I can't really see how they would get a conviction ... a jury would have to be 90% certain to convict ... sounds like a lot of money just to investigate 16,000 people much less prosecute them. I really can't see that happening.
Democracy at work
Submitted by Frank on Sat, 03/22/2008 - 7:49am.
Whether you like it or not. What Rush Limbaugh has encouraged appeals to those voters afraid for their party in November. Threatened with being the minority party in power, perhaps for some, losing their jobs as a result, they will stoop to this kind of manipulation of the open primary process – as implemented in Ohio. Will it work? I suspect it can have enough effect in a close race to make the difference. Perhaps, party declaration should be enforced at least 30 days before a primary, like Pa., but that will never eliminate this kind of voter subterfuge from occurring.
I think the motivation was
Submitted by Magi1 on Sat, 03/22/2008 - 10:48am.
I think the motivation was less 'fear' and more 'get even' for Dems crossing over giving Republicans McCain. The idea was to keep Clinton in the race to bloody Obama and the Democratic party, without having McCain or the RNC use campaign cash. Has it worked?
dumb idea
Is there a section of the Ohio Revised Code that actually criminalizes encouraging others to break the law, whether in this context or not? If not, then it's just a bunch of unproductive grandstanding.
Seems to me the real culprits are those who actually cross-voted after insincerely changing their party registration, not the blowhard who recommended it.
And let's not forget many of those same people weren't made to sign or affirm anything because of inadequate poll worker training.