NYTimes editorial condemning sanctions against Arnebeck

[dogindia]

but saying that case was weak. The big lie that B won is still strong.

http://nytimes.com/2005/02/03/opinion/03thu2.html

[meganmonkey]

1. Excerpts:

(I took out the second paragraph only which mostly gave background on the case - so most of the article is here)

One of the strengths of our democracy is that citizens are free to question the results of an election. But four lawyers who did just that in Ohio, contesting President Bush's victory, are now facing sanctions. These lawyers, and other skeptics, may not have cast significant doubt on the legitimacy of the outcome. But punishing them for trying would send a disturbing message.
---snip---

Ohio's attorney general, who represents Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell in the matter, has asked the State Supreme Court to sanction Mr. Arnebeck and the others for mounting a "frivolous" challenge. Even though their case was weak, these lawyers did a public service by raising concerns that many voters shared. The burden put on Ohio's courts by their challenge was minimal. Courts know what to do when they get a weak case: throw it out.

Imposing sanctions would be likely to deter people from raising concerns about future elections, and ultimately undermine public confidence in the electoral process. The Ohio Supreme Court should make it clear that people have the right to challenge election results without fear of retribution.

It is odd that Mr. Blackwell, of all people, is requesting sanctions. He made many bad decisions as Ohio's top elections official, including one to reject voter registrations filed on insufficiently thick paper, an order he later retracted. Mr. Blackwell and the officials responsible for the 10-hour lines have not been held accountable for putting unnecessary obstacles in the way of Ohio voters. It will be a poor reflection on our election system if the only ones punished are the lawyers who tried to point out these deficiencies.

[Wilms]

2. Wow. Who told the NYT there are issues in OH? n/t

[meganmonkey]

3. dunno - but I love the way he harshes on Blackwell and those who refuse

to investigate his malfeasance!

I think this is a great article to see in NYT!

[Zan_of_Texas]

7. Well, it's a little misleading.

The NYT has done some of the best corporate media coverage on election flaws and fraud.

This article does not measure up to their own standard.

It fails to note that the courts declined to preserve evidence, or enforce subpoenas. It fails to note that Blackwell slow walked and stonewalled, to make the Arnebeck case, and the recount effort, delayed to the point of seeming irrelevant.

And, it implies that the case was thrown out.

It was not. Arnebeck withdrew it.

It's hard to prove your case without subpoenas being done, witnesses being required to testify, and evidence preserved. Not to mention that Arnebeck had already attacked the Court justice on a previous matter, and wasn't exactly getting red carpet treatment.

[Joe for Clark]

4. Thanks for poting this

It is a very interesting "take".

Joe for Clark

[Quakerfriend]

5. Sadly, this is now the status quo from the NYT

ignore the issues until the reporting is a day late.

I dropped my subscription long ago, and will not pay for on-line times if they start charging.

[BigBearJohn]

6. Thanks for posting this. I sent it to all Repugs I know

[Wilms]

8. kick n/t

[McCamy Taylor]

9. NYT was looking forward to those relaxed media ownership rules

Bet they would have liked to have owned a NYC TV station maybe a couple of radio stations, another (lower brow) newspaper in the same market. Now they can kiss their dreams of a big fat NYC media empire good bye.

Wonder if they will take out their anger on the * administration by doing some actual investigative journalism about Votergate or WMDgate or Enron? Naw. Spineless wimps, the lot of them.