NEW: Biden Is Off the Ohio General Election Ballot

[Mountain Man]

Sam, I believe that has been explained to you before. There is a difference between a bright-line rule that requires no interpretation, debate, etc. to apply, and one where people are having to write entire legal papers in attempts to justify why a particular law should apply, and others write entire legal papers as to why the law doesn't apply. One that requires interpretation of undefined terms, and entire legal theories be applied to determine if they THINK it applies to the situation.

I know that nuance is lost on you.

And as the courts ruled, the Democrat party's interpretation of the law they used to keep President Trump off the ballot was incorrect.

[Sam]

Here, nobody is actively trying to keep Biden off the ballot. They had a law already in place with a deadline, that applies to all candidates. All the DNC has to do is obey the law and Biden is on the ballot. Whether Biden gets on the ballot is entirely up to the DNC. There is no campaign to try to remove him from the ballot like there was with Trump. It is entirely passive on the part of Ohio. They have a law. The DNC can obey it or flout it. It's their choice. They still have plenty of time to fix it.

That's my position, yes. With the caveats that 1) Republicans have historically granted themselves waivers for this exact scenario and are so exercising rank hypocrisy and 2) we know full well how folks on this forum who have complained that applying the rule of law to other candidates is undemocratic (or, more recently, that an elected official serving prison time during his elected term would be "nullifying" the democratic will of the people) were this NYS Democrats using "lawfare" to keep Trump off the ballot.

The law's the law and if the law requires constant waivers the law should be changed to accommodate. But, until then, Democrats should expect to not get any favors. And if Republicans aren't willing to extend the same graces to Democrats that they offer themselves, they (and their affiliates) ought not to complain when the rule of law is similarly brought to bear against their interests.

-Sam

[Sparko]

This problem is entirely of the DNC's own making.

[Sam]

This problem is entirely of the DNC's own making.

As are Trump's criminal trials or RFK Jr.'s ballot access woes or Trump's incitement of an insurrectionist mob, respectively.

-Sam

[Mountain Man]

That's my position, yes. With the caveats that 1) Republicans have historically granted themselves waivers for this exact scenario and are so exercising rank hypocrisy and 2) we know full well how folks on this forum who have complained that applying the rule of law to other candidates is undemocratic (or, more recently, that an elected official serving prison time during his elected term would be "nullifying" the democratic will of the people) were this NYS Democrats using "lawfare" to keep Trump off the ballot.

The law's the law and if the law requires constant waivers the law should be changed to accommodate. But, until then, Democrats should expect to not get any favors. And if Republicans aren't willing to extend the same graces to Democrats that they offer themselves, they (and their affiliates) ought not to complain when the rule of law is similarly brought to bear against their interests.

-Sam

Are you saying that Ohio regularly issues waivers to the Republican party for missing the filing deadline? I tried several search queries but can't find any information to support this.

[Sam]

Are you saying that Ohio regularly issues waivers to the Republican party for missing the filing deadline? I tried several search queries but can't find any information to support this.

"Ohio" + "Republican" + "Convention" + "Waiver" will get you there.

Source: The Ohio law that could keep Joe Biden off the ballot has been in place for years. Why wasn’t it an issue until now?. Andrew J. Tobias, Jeremy Pelzer. Cleveland.com. 2024.04.22

But for at least for the past two elections where the date has posed a conflict with the Republican and Democratic parties’ plans, lawmakers have agreed to extend the deadline, albeit each time in a one-time fix.

The most recent example came in 2019, when GOP state lawmakers moved the deadline to September for the 2020 election. The fix was included as a provision in the state budget bill, and LaRose informed elections officials of the change in the form of an August 2019 memo.

The development meant the new deadline was set more than a year ahead of both parties’ 2020 conventions. That year’s Republican convention was held on Aug. 24-27, 2020 and the Democratic convention was held on Aug. 17-20, 2020.

Before that, lawmakers temporarily fixed the issue ahead of the 2012 elections, when Republicans held their convention nominating Mitt Romney from Aug. 27-30, 2012, and Democrats nominated then-President Barack Obama from Sept. 4-6, 2012.

In that instance, Republican and Democratic state lawmakers passed a one-time fix on June 13, 2012 as part of an unrelated bill.

© Copyright Original Source

-Sam

[Sparko]

"Ohio" + "Republican" + "Convention" + "Waiver" will get you there.

Source: The Ohio law that could keep Joe Biden off the ballot has been in place for years. Why wasn’t it an issue until now?. Andrew J. Tobias, Jeremy Pelzer. Cleveland.com. 2024.04.22

But for at least for the past two elections where the date has posed a conflict with the Republican and Democratic parties’ plans, lawmakers have agreed to extend the deadline, albeit each time in a one-time fix.

The most recent example came in 2019, when GOP state lawmakers moved the deadline to September for the 2020 election. The fix was included as a provision in the state budget bill, and LaRose informed elections officials of the change in the form of an August 2019 memo.

The development meant the new deadline was set more than a year ahead of both parties’ 2020 conventions. That year’s Republican convention was held on Aug. 24-27, 2020 and the Democratic convention was held on Aug. 17-20, 2020.

Before that, lawmakers temporarily fixed the issue ahead of the 2012 elections, when Republicans held their convention nominating Mitt Romney from Aug. 27-30, 2012, and Democrats nominated then-President Barack Obama from Sept. 4-6, 2012.

In that instance, Republican and Democratic state lawmakers passed a one-time fix on June 13, 2012 as part of an unrelated bill.

© Copyright Original Source

-Sam

Sounds like the waivers applied to both parties. Since this happens every election, it means they probably should fix it through legislation, like the Ohio Governor suggested.

However, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine said the legislature needs to make the fix.

“I have every confidence that it’s going to get done,” he said Tuesday. “No one should worry, they’re going to be able to vote for the president or the former president, whoever they want to vote for. You know, this is not going to be a situation where the president’s name is not on the ballot. So it’s either going to be done by the court, or it’s going to be done by the legislature.”

[rogue06]

"Ohio" + "Republican" + "Convention" + "Waiver" will get you there.

Source: The Ohio law that could keep Joe Biden off the ballot has been in place for years. Why wasn’t it an issue until now?. Andrew J. Tobias, Jeremy Pelzer. Cleveland.com. 2024.04.22

But for at least for the past two elections where the date has posed a conflict with the Republican and Democratic parties’ plans, lawmakers have agreed to extend the deadline, albeit each time in a one-time fix.

The most recent example came in 2019, when GOP state lawmakers moved the deadline to September for the 2020 election. The fix was included as a provision in the state budget bill, and LaRose informed elections officials of the change in the form of an August 2019 memo.

The development meant the new deadline was set more than a year ahead of both parties’ 2020 conventions. That year’s Republican convention was held on Aug. 24-27, 2020 and the Democratic convention was held on Aug. 17-20, 2020.

Before that, lawmakers temporarily fixed the issue ahead of the 2012 elections, when Republicans held their convention nominating Mitt Romney from Aug. 27-30, 2012, and Democrats nominated then-President Barack Obama from Sept. 4-6, 2012.

In that instance, Republican and Democratic state lawmakers passed a one-time fix on June 13, 2012 as part of an unrelated bill.

© Copyright Original Source

-Sam

Looks like this was done when both sides screwed up and both sides approved the "one time" waiver. Not exactly as you presented it. Also, looks like only one side learned its lesson.

[CivilDiscourse]

That's my position, yes. With the caveats that 1) Republicans have historically granted themselves waivers for this exact scenario and are so exercising rank hypocrisy and 2) we know full well how folks on this forum who have complained that applying the rule of law to other candidates is undemocratic (or, more recently, that an elected official serving prison time during his elected term would be "nullifying" the democratic will of the people) were this NYS Democrats using "lawfare" to keep Trump off the ballot.

The law's the law and if the law requires constant waivers the law should be changed to accommodate. But, until then, Democrats should expect to not get any favors. And if Republicans aren't willing to extend the same graces to Democrats that they offer themselves, they (and their affiliates) ought not to complain when the rule of law is similarly brought to bear against their interests.

-Sam

The republicans shouldn't have to save him, and nobody should expect them to.

[Mountain Man]

"Ohio" + "Republican" + "Convention" + "Waiver" will get you there.

Source: The Ohio law that could keep Joe Biden off the ballot has been in place for years. Why wasn’t it an issue until now?. Andrew J. Tobias, Jeremy Pelzer. Cleveland.com. 2024.04.22

But for at least for the past two elections where the date has posed a conflict with the Republican and Democratic parties’ plans, lawmakers have agreed to extend the deadline, albeit each time in a one-time fix.

The most recent example came in 2019, when GOP state lawmakers moved the deadline to September for the 2020 election. The fix was included as a provision in the state budget bill, and LaRose informed elections officials of the change in the form of an August 2019 memo.

The development meant the new deadline was set more than a year ahead of both parties’ 2020 conventions. That year’s Republican convention was held on Aug. 24-27, 2020 and the Democratic convention was held on Aug. 17-20, 2020.

Before that, lawmakers temporarily fixed the issue ahead of the 2012 elections, when Republicans held their convention nominating Mitt Romney from Aug. 27-30, 2012, and Democrats nominated then-President Barack Obama from Sept. 4-6, 2012.

In that instance, Republican and Democratic state lawmakers passed a one-time fix on June 13, 2012 as part of an unrelated bill.

© Copyright Original Source

-Sam

I see. So unlike you suggested, Ohio is not being hypocritical or playing favorites but has issued waivers for both parties twice in the past. In this case, it's just the Democrats asking for special treatment, so Ohio is not being inconsistent denying the request. To mirror you sentiments, "Republicans won't bail them out, nor should they expect them too."

[CivilDiscourse]

I see. So unlike you suggested, Ohio is not being hypocritical or playing favorites but has issued waivers for both parties twice in the past. In this case, it's just the Democrats asking for special treatment, so Ohio is not being inconsistent denying the request. To mirror you sentiments, "Republicans won't bail them out, nor should they expect them too."

My favorite bit here is that sentiment comes from McCarthy being ousted as speaker.

The Republicans voted 8 (out of 210) to oust the speaker. The Democrats voted 208 (out of 208) to oust the speaker.

I Sam's mind, this was "Democrats doing nothing"

[Stoic]

Looks like this was done when both sides screwed up and both sides approved the "one time" waiver. Not exactly as you presented it. Also, looks like only one side learned its lesson.

I'm not sure you can say one side learned its lesson, given that they had to be bailed out in 2012, but not 2016, and 2020, but not 2024. It looks more like the coin came up "heads" for them this year.

[Sam]

Looks like this was done when both sides screwed up and both sides approved the "one time" waiver. Not exactly as you presented it. Also, looks like only one side learned its lesson.

I see. So unlike you suggested, Ohio is not being hypocritical or playing favorites but has issued waivers for both parties twice in the past. In this case, it's just the Democrats asking for special treatment, so Ohio is not being inconsistent denying the request. To mirror you sentiments, "Republicans won't bail them out, nor should they expect them too."

If Ohio Republicans are willing to waive the 90-day restriction when their convention is impacted but not when the Democratic convention is impacted, that is definitional hypocrisy. The principle doesn't matter at all — they'll waive the deadline if they get something out of it and they won't waive the deadline if they don't, even as they have relied on such waivers in the past and will rely on such waivers in the future.

-Sam

[CivilDiscourse]

If Ohio Republicans are willing to waive the 90-day restriction when their convention is impacted but not when the Democratic convention is impacted, that is definitional hypocrisy. The principle doesn't matter at all — they'll waive the deadline if they get something out of it and they won't waive the deadline if they don't, even as they have relied on such waivers in the past and will rely on such waivers in the future.

-Sam

You can't blame Republicans for doing nothing to save democrats from their own disfunction.

[Mountain Man]

If Ohio Republicans are willing to waive the 90-day restriction when their convention is impacted but not when the Democratic convention is impacted, that is definitional hypocrisy. The principle doesn't matter at all — they'll waive the deadline if they get something out of it and they won't waive the deadline if they don't, even as they have relied on such waivers in the past and will rely on such waivers in the future.

-Sam

Except the examples you referenced were Ohio waiving the rules to benefit both parties. In this case, the Democrats are asking for special treatment that will benefit only them. So, again, nothing inconsistent or hypocritical about it.