Due to budgetary concerns, the light at the end of the tunnel...

Thank God for small miracles!

Earlier today, Congressional Republicans managed to finally attach an amendment to the latest Continuing Resolution spending bill that will operate (for the time being) as a sort-of de facto repeal of the 2007 incandescent light bulb ban.

While it's about damned time this happened (the legislation's components were set to take effect the first of the coming year) there is no shortage of comedic misdirection being perpetrated by the right-wing.

Here is a sample of such posturing from the article linked above:

"'When the American people gave Republicans control of the House in January, one of the major issues involved was the Democratic ban on the 100 watt bulb,' said Rep. Michael Burgess, who fought to preserve the incandescent bulb. 'Republicans have fulfilled our promise to the American people by allowing them to continue to be able to choose what type of bulb they use at home. Consumers should drive the marketplace, not the government.'"

Burgess will make such a comment with complete disregard for the fact Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) -- who presently chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee -- was one of the ban's legislative architects and the bill was signed into law by then-President George W. Bush.

But, we're all supposed to believe this was a "Democratic ban."

My next-favorite snippet appears two paragraphs before the one quoted above:

"Stopping the bulb ban was a chief GOP priority coming into this year, with all of the candidates seeking to become chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee saying they would push through a repeal."

Be aware that I refer to the GOP's "policy rider" as a "sort-of de facto repeal" due to the fact it doesn't actually overturn the original legislation it merely places prohibitions on expenditures related to its enforcement.

And some people still wonder why I'm a Libertarian.

Federal judge rules in favor of LPO in ballot access fight

Below is a press release authored by Libertarian Party of Ohio Deputy Communication Director Kalin Stipe.

In addition to the comments offered by Michael Johnston, LPO Vice Chair and director of the party's Political Division, I would like to state that this development — first and foremost — is welcome news and speaks volumes of the Libertarian Party's comprehension of the Constitution of the United States. As I have been telling our members and supporters locally, how can we expect the public to believe we are prepared to fight for their constitutional rights if we are unable or unwilling to fight for our own?

Given the LPO's track record of successful litigation when this issue arose both in 2006 and 2008, the likelihood of prevailing in court never was in doubt. Unfortunately, Ohio lawmakers were fully aware of this but moved forward with the contested components contained in the bill despite knowing it would incur legal expenses on the taxpayers' dime.

With the Ohio Republican Party in control of the Governor's Mansion as well as enjoying substantial majorities in both chambers of the General Assembly, this was undeniably a partisan attempt to perpetuate the ongoing disenfranchisement of Ohio's registered voters — who have grown increasingly weary of the failed manner in which government at all levels has operated over the years.

Furthermore, that our state legislators would bury the key clauses designed to deny ballot access for minor political parties within a routine housekeeping bill (the update to Ohio's election laws) demonstrates a clear intent by the ORP to obstruct competition within the political system. As LPO Chair Kevin Knedler rightly pointed-out during a statewide party function in June, if what Ohio Republicans attempted with ballot access laws was perpetrated in private industry those companies would face federal investigation for violating U.S. antitrust laws.

While this plays-out in court, we in the Allen County Libertarian Party look forward to providing area voters with fresh options in the political arena as well as the opportunity to pursue a government that respects the individual and is less intrusive in our economic and personal concerns.

Together in Liberty,

Don Kissick
Allen County Libertarian Party Chair

********

Read the text of Judge Marbley's injunction.

********

Federal judge rules in favor of LPO in ballot access fight

COLUMBUS — A U.S. District Court judge ruled Wednesday against the state of Ohio in a lawsuit brought by the Libertarian Party of Ohio to preserve its right to be on the ballot.

Judge Algenon Marbley granted the Libertarian Party of Ohio’s request for a preliminary injunction that protects ballot access for the party through 2012, including for Libertarian candidates already on the November 2011 ballot in Akron and Troy.

The ruling is part of ongoing litigation, LPO v. Husted, which the LPO filed in response to the passage of HB 194 by the General Assembly earlier this year, a measure that made several changes to Ohio’s voting system.

“This ruling is not just a victory for the Libertarian Party of Ohio, but for the majority of Ohioans, including Republicans and Democrats, who are looking for a viable alternative to our current, dysfunctional two-party system,” said Michael Johnston, LPO vice chair. “With this ruling, Judge Marbley has guaranteed that our soldiers returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan will be able to participate in an open electoral process, not unlike the one they laid their lives down to create in the Middle East. We look forward to engaging all political opponents in a vibrant debate in the upcoming Presidential election cycle.”

Marbley noted that the General Assembly had “failed to respond” to previous federal court rulings in favor of the LPO’s ballot access rights in 2006 and 2008. Marbley’s decision recaps LPO v. Brunner, noting that the court found that the requirements set forth by then-Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner were a “severe, unconstitutional burden.” The decision also agreed with the LPO that the new requirements contained in HB 194 limit the ability of the LPO to participate in the democratic process, a fundamental requirement for a group such as the Libertarian Party that seeks to govern.

“Women fought for the right to vote 100 years ago, minorities fought the same fight 50 years ago, and here we are in the 21st century doing the same thing,” said LPO Chair Kevin Knedler. “At a time when the United States is trying to spread freedom and liberty around the world, it is unfortunate that we have to fight in courtrooms, right here in Ohio, for a basic freedom: the right to have more than just one or two choices on a ballot and the right to privately express ourselves when voting. The fight for our freedoms is not over, but after three federal court wins in five years, we are much closer.”

Several recent public opinion polls have demonstrated growing interest in political alternatives to the two major parties that routinely drive our nation and state to the brink of disaster. The Libertarian Party is that alternative, supporting balanced budgets, common sense laws, and promoting candidates who recognize that the United States Constitution is our nation’s primary source of law.

The Libertarian Party is the third largest political party in Ohio. Founded in 1971, the LP supports fiscal responsibility and social acceptance. LPO candidates espousing common-sense, middle class values in 2010 collectively earned enough voter trust to garner more than 1,000,000 votes statewide and earned an average of more than five percent for their respective races. The LPO was the only minor party to run a full statewide executive slate in 2010 — the first minor party to do so since 1934 — and had the only gubernatorial candidate bold and honest enough to release a budget plan for Ohio before the General Election.

Unintended consequences revisited: when two laws create combined misery

As the Buckeye State’s Republican-controlled General Assembly and governor's mansion try to move forward in making Ohio a voter ID state, I am reminded of a previous hassle I recently endured with another state law.

Lawmakers bound to the Ohio Republican Party are pushing forward with HB159, which if enacted would be dubbed the “Ohio Fair and Secured Elections Act.”

This General Assembly house bill, which draws a harsh analysis from Examiner.com’s John Michael Spinelli, would require voters to furnish a state photo ID or other form of identification from a short list of options before being able to cast their votes in a primary or general election in Ohio.

In my opinion, this plan has the potential to hit a key snag given the newly-created potential difficulties of obtaining a new license or ID after you move into a new residence.

My prediction is misery will abound when these two measures collide at the expense of many Ohio residents.

I sent an e-mail to state lawmakers from the west-central region explaining the pitfalls of last year’s new ID law. Earlier this week, I received a postal-mail response from House Majority Floor Leader Matt Huffman.

Instead of transcribing portions of Representative Huffman’s letter I simply am attaching my e-mail response below – which includes references to his correspondence with me.

Toward the end, I make my case for how these two measures – one already on the books and one making its way through chambers – will likely combine to disenfranchise voters across Ohio.

*****

Representative Huffman,

I received your letter and I appreciate your reply.

Expanding the list to include the signed lease for acceptable proof of new residence was a basic matter of common sense. I find it surprising it wasn't in the original language of the bill which has become this portion of the Ohio Revised Code's language.

Three suggestions (as you requested) when it comes to aiding the economically displaced residents who are being affected by this law would be to allow them to present a notarized letter signed by the individual(s) needing a new license and the person(s) with whom they now reside, allow mail which has the yellow forwarding sticker affixed by the USPS, as well as doing more to inform the public of this new law. In most circumstances, public notary services are free of charge so this also would be a common-sense update.

In the information you included in your letter, it is not clear at all whether forwarded mail is acceptable.

With my initial e-mail, I stressed the fact that my wife is disabled and just getting to the BMV is a significant undertaking. Going in and waiting in line means draining what little energy she is able to muster for such an evolution. These new proof of residency stipulations have the potential to adversely impact not only the disabled but also the elderly.

When my wife, Marcy, and I went to update our licenses we were completely caught unaware that day. In light of the fact she spent most of May (and much of June) in the hospital receiving treatment for leukemia she still needs to obtain a new license from the local BMV office.

My concerns here are not based on any misguided notion of Social Justice but out of concern for those who are placed in a situation of great difficulty just to be in compliance with state law. From my own experience, the manner in which the new law inhibited my ability to get a new license resulted in me having to pay a $20 late fee. My birthday was May 4 and this year I was due to renew my license anyhow. I was not able to procure an acceptable proof of residency until after the seven-day grace period.

Had I been forced to go longer without a renewed license and were I to have needed to interact with law enforcement during a traffic stop, this law could very well have resulted in me being cited for driving with an expired license – which I would have fought in court in light of the circumstances. In this hypothetical situation, should I have won such a court ruling, you and your fellow legislators may well have been looking at this law being tossed-out and needing to start from scratch in order to put something similar to it on the books.

The more I contemplate this law, the more obvious it is to me that when it was being crafted, proper thought had not been given to the fact that in this electronic age, more and more billing, payments, banking, and other such business are being handled online to reduce paper correspondence. Such as with the documentation I procured for getting my license renewed, I had to go to Spherion and get a pay stub in person with my new address on it. With everything that has transpired personally recently I was unable to attempt this sooner.

Adding to the comedy of the overall situation is the fact my bank requires its customers to furnish a new ID with their new address before it will update it on their accounts. Obviously, this policy by the bank is intended to reduce its customers' risk for fraud or identity theft.

In fairness, I understand completely why these hoops were put in place: to prevent the degree of voter fraud which took place in the 2008 general election and created significant embarrassment for Ohio; and to a lesser degree ensure the growing number of illegal immigrants in our state are unable to fraudulently obtain Ohio drivers' licenses and other false identification.

Speaking of the issue of voting, I am aware there is an effort as of late to add the requirement for presentation of identification at polling places on days of election. When you couple all the difficulties described above (and in previous correspondence) in simply obtaining a new Ohio license with this election fraud initiative, now we are approaching the risk of significant – if not widespread – voter disenfranchisement. The litigation from such a development alone would result in tremendous legal expenses for the state and further add to the embarrassment of Ohio.

I would hope at this point it is obvious that the (both potential and very real) unnecessary obstacles to Ohio residents begin mounting rapidly once this situation is given proper thought. The new law carries with it considerable unintended consequences for Ohioans. We should not have to jump through so many hurdles to – again – simply be in compliance with state laws.

Thank you for your time,

Don Kissick
Lima