Jai Chabria: Fight against voter fraud comes to Ohio -- here's what it means for all of us
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}Get all the latest news on coronavirus and more delivered daily to your inbox. Sign up here.
“As Ohio goes, so goes the nation.” That’s the mantra we have heard in presidential elections time and time again. A ruling by an activist federal judge in the Buckeye state foreshadows a dangerous outcome for the rest of the country. Hopefully, an appellate court ruling has saved the day for now, but we now have insight into the liberal playbook for future elections.
Once hailed as the most purple state in the country, Ohio’s changing demographics are making it redder by the year. That will not stop Democrats from putting resources into the Buckeye state to try and expand Joe Biden’s path to electoral victory.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}The national COVID-19 pandemic has impacted all facets of our lives and our ability to vote in elections is included. Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, a Republican, has been focused on having as normal an election as possible in November, but an unelected, Bill Clinton appointed judge has attempted to throw a wrench in the process. And, it’s a precedent we are likely to see more of in the future.
OHIO GOV. MIKE DEWINE SAYS CAREFUL REOPENING PROCESS SHOWING POSITIVE RESULTS
Last week, Southern District Court Edmund Sargus Jr. ruled that because groups trying to get liberal pet issues into the Ohio constitution “cannot collect signatures in person” by the legal deadlines due to the state’s stay-at-home order, the Secretary of State must accept electronic signatures.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}By allowing signatures to be submitted electronically, Sargus effectively tried to remove accountability from the process. Under his ruling, witnesses were no longer required, and his recommendations essentially required a computer science degree to determine whether potential fraud may be occurring. Our democracy demands better.
In reading between the lines, here’s the simple strategy: the more liberal issues which appear on the ballot, the more likely it is that Democrats will come to the polls. This is especially true when they are not enamored with their candidate at the top of the ticket.
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR OPINION NEWSLETTER
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}I’m not a believer that either voter fraud or voter suppression occurs to the degree advocates on either side of the debate profess it happens. But, activist decisions like this one degrade the efficacy people have in the electoral process. The integrity of our elections is as equally important as the ability for citizens to believe their vote is counted.
More from Opinion
- Jim Hanson: Trump’s social media executive order is justified – protects free speech, combats censorship
- Jack Brewer: George Floyd must be mourned -- and we must remember to keep our eye on the real enemy
- Ian Prior, former DOJ spokesman: Trump right to order fed investigation of Floyd death in Minneapolis – here’s what could happen now
Provisions like this have been introduced in legislatures across America. Not a single one has passed and currently, electoral signature gathering is only allowed in Massachusetts. Oh, and that one was forced by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court just a few weeks ago. Notice a pattern?
Thankfully, LaRose asked Attorney General Dave Yost to appeal this faulty decision to the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and the judge’s order was stayed pending further appeal.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}Depending on where this case goes from here, Ohioans could be forced into this scenario even though the process has not been vetted in any meaningful way by any other state. Nor has it even been debated in Ohio! We have foreign governments that we know have targeted our elections, yet it’s OK for an activist judge to mandate a technology on voters without informing us about the potential downsides?
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
While Judge Sargus only made this ruling for a select group of liberal issues and only for this November’s election, we all understand how the slippery slope works. Once the goalposts move, it is almost impossible to have a sane discussion about returning to normalcy without voting groups screaming about suppression from the tops of their lungs. If electronic signature gathering is allowed only for the 2020 pandemic, smart money is it starts to spread in 2021 and beyond.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}Moreover, why would this only apply to issue campaigns. Signature gathering is the same basic process regardless of the type of elections. Candidates will likely be granted this ability to use the internet to gather signatures as well.
Thankfully, the U.S. Sixth Court of Appeals has restored temporary sanity to the process. Regardless of the ultimate outcome of this particular case, electronic signature gathering is likely going to be the next hot topic in the battle over the ballot box. If it’s true that Ohio sets the tone for the nation, electronic signature gathering could be coming to your state.