In victory for Sanders, Ohio judge says 17-year-olds can vote in primary


#1

An Ohio county judge ruled Friday that 17-year-olds will be allowed to vote in Tuesday’s primaries, a victory for Bernie Sanders’ campaign.

Franklin County Judge Richard Frye determined that Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted, a Republican, erred when he ordered that Ohioans who are currently 17 but will be 18 on election day in November not be allowed to vote in the presidential primaries.

Husted’s office said he would appeal the ruling, which applies to all election boards in the state and orders them to accommodate 17-year-olds Tuesday.

Another of Husted’s voter suppression attempts has been thwarted. :thumbsup:


#2

I thought the issue was more between Sanders and Clinton than between Sanders and the Republican candidates since Sanders has a lot more support from younger voters than Clinton has.


#3

What do you think, MB? Is your boy going to take my girl out? :slight_smile:


#4

Maybe on a date but otherwise probably not despite Sanders’ momentum at the present time.


#5

That’s not voter oppression. That’s just logic because 17 year olds can’t form contracts.

How would people feel if say, 17 year old kids signed bad contracts that courts would not overturn because they were consenting adults?

Besides, it’s only for those who will be 18 by election day.


#6

Isn’t it sexist by liberal standards to refer to SOS Hillary as “your girl”? :wink:


#7

This was an issue of principle for Sanders. Husted reports to Kasich so perhaps the question should be what Kasich has to gain by eliminating 15,500 voters from the equation.

It is transparent voter suppression. These same citizens can vote in local elections, tax levies, ballot initiatives, congressional elections, and will in the presidential election yet somehow they aren’t allowed to vote in the presidential primary? Glad the Judge cut through that like a hot knife through butter.


#8

Haha. I’m crazy about Sanders. I would cast a November vote for him with confidence.


#9

On a casual message board post?


#10

Whenever liberals accuse the GOP of it, they don’t use such qualifiers.

But getting back to the topic at hand----it isn’t voter suppression to keep minors from voting.

And it’s obvious how the Democrats would feel about voter suppression if minorities voted GOP 75% of the time…


#11

Here in MI, that has been specifically allowed for awhile now. You are permitted to vote in primaries if you are going to be 18 on or before the election date. A 17 would not be permitted to vote on any local elections or ballot measures that are happening on the same day.

It would be interesting to see what OH election law actually says on the matter.


#12

In a Democratic primary election, probably not too much.


#13

I don’t think it’s vote suppression, either.

I really don’t care which way the appeal goes.


#14

The law actually says:

“At a primary election every qualified elector who is or will be on the day of the next general election eighteen or more years of age, and who is a member of or is affiliated with the political party whose primary election ballot he desires to vote, shall be entitled to vote such ballot at the primary election.

Husted is basically breaking the law with his directive.


#15

=EmperorNapoleon;13741350]This was an issue of principle for Sanders.

I’ve already addressed this is another comment, but to quote El Rushbo “if minorities voted GOP most of the time, the Democratic Party would have snipers at the border”.

Like pretty much all progressive causes, electing Democrats to office trumps the cause as needed.

Husted reports to Kasich so perhaps the question should be what Kasich has to gain by eliminating 15,500 voters from the equation.

Well, maybe, but by that logic, does that mean we can blame Barack Obama and Joe Biden for the Clinton e-mail scandal? Turnabout is fair play.

The question could also be asked, why not allow 17 year olds to form legal contracts as adults then? Why not let them get a credit card with 30% interest, and when they go broke and dad and mom have to pay the bill and take the credit card company, the judge says “Too bad, because you signed this as adult. Now pay up!”

But, I guess this case is designed to help Democrats on paper, as pretty much all of these false accusations of “voter suppression” are. Of course, if they had seen 2012 exit polls for 18-20 yo, they may have thought differently. :o:shrug::stuck_out_tongue:

It is transparent voter suppression. These same citizens can vote in local elections, congressional elections, and in the presidential election yet somehow they aren’t allowed to vote in the presidential primary? Glad the Judge cut through that like a hot knife through butter.

:yawn:

It’s because they are 17 and deemed to not always be informed enough to make an important decision like voting for our leaders.


#16

Those restrictions are sensible, as is often the case in litigation, but it’s still moving the needle to a place I’m not so sure we want to go.


#17

That hasn’t been the legal state of things in Ohio for 35 years. The legislature decided that they do have the right to vote in the primary 35 years ago. Who is John Husted to unilaterally declare they don’t have that right in violation of the law?


#18

That seems pretty clear. I’m surprised Husted acted as he did if that is the law in Ohio.

But attributing some sort of voter suppression motive to Husted seems odd. Why on earth would he want to suppress primary votes? The only one to benefit from Husted’s action would seem to be Hillary Clinton.


#19

Remember: It’s always a Republican’s fault.


#20

I guess the distinction is that the delegates themselves are considered to be elected to their position.

But a manual for elections officials issued last year by Republican Secretary of State Jon Husted says 17-year-olds can vote “solely on the nomination of candidates” – and not in the presidential contest “because delegates are elected and not nominated.”

Interesting legal distinction.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.