Supreme Court Sides With Voter Registration Fraud

The Supreme Court has said that it's perfectly okay to not have to verify thousands of potentially fraudulent votes. They didn't look into voter registration and voter fraud, they looked into whether or not the Ohio GOP had the right to sue the Secretary of State Brunner.  This whole situation gets more pathetic each day.

The Supreme Court sided Friday with Ohio's top elections official in a dispute with the state Republican Party over voter registrations.

The justices overruled a federal appeals court that had ordered Ohio's top elections official to do more to help counties verify voter eligibility.

[...]

In a brief unsigned opinion, the justices said they were not commenting on whether Ohio is complying with a provision of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 that lays out requirements for verifying voter eligibility.

Instead, they said they were granting Brunner's request because it appears that the law does not allow private entities, like the Ohio GOP, to file suit to enforce the provision of the law at issue.

***UPDATE***

The official court ruling:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 08A332
JENNIFER BRUNNER, OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE
v. OHIO REPUBLICAN PARTY ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR STAY
[October 17, 2008]
PER CURIAM.

On October 9, 2008, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio entered a temporary restraining order (TRO) directing Jennifer Brunner, the Ohio Secretary of State, to update Ohio’s Statewide Voter Registration Database (SWVRD) to comply with Section303 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), 116 Stat. 1708, 42 U. S. C. §15483(a)(5)(B)(i).* The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied the Secretary’s motion to vacate the TRO. The Secretary has filed an application to stay the TRO with JUSTICE STEVENS as Circuit Justice for the Sixth Circuit, and he has referred the matter to the Court. The Secretary argues both that the District Court had no jurisdiction to enter the TRO and that its ruling on the merits was erroneous. We express no opinion on the question whether HAVA is being properly implemented. Respondents,however, are not sufficiently likely to prevail on the question whether Congress has authorized the District Court to enforce Section 303 in an action brought by a private litigant to justify the issuance of a TRO. See Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U. S. 273, 283 (2002); Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U. S. 275, 286 (2001). We therefore grant the application for a stay and vacate the TRO.

It is so ordered.

——————
*Title 42 U. S. C. §15483(a)(5)(B)(i) (2000 ed., Supp. V) states, in relevant part:
“The chief State election official and the official responsible for the State motor vehicle authority of a State shall enter into an agreement to match information in the database of the statewide voter registration system with information in the database of the motor vehicle authority to the extent required to enable each such official to verify the accuracy of the information provided on applications for voter registration.”