The Minnesota Supreme Court decided in favor of Al Franken yesterday, declaring him the winner of the 2008 election for U.S. Senator in the State of Minnesota.  One of Norm Coleman's arguments was that the counting of the absentee ballots violated his rights under the Equal Protection Clause under the case of Bush v. Gore (2000).   Here is a link to the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision, and a description of this aspect of the decision follows.

     At pages 20-22 of its opinion the Minnesota Supreme Court discusses Senator Coleman’s argument that the counting of the absentee ballots violated his rights under Bush v. Gore (2000). The Court distinguished Bush v. Gore for the following reasons:

     First, in Florida the question was how individual ballots should be interpreted – remember the “hanging chads” and “pregnant chads”? In Minnesota the issue revolved around the acceptance or rejection of sealed absentee ballots.  Election officials in Minnesota were not determining the subjective intent of the voter but rather whether the voter had complied with election law in filling out the absentee ballot envelope. Unlike the Florida election officials, Minnesota election officials had no way of knowing which candidate voters had cast their ballots for.

     Second, in Florida there had been no uniform legal standards for determining the intent of the voter, whereas in Minnesota there were clear statutory standards for the acceptance or rejection of absentee ballots. While there were local variations in the procedures that Minnesota election officials used to review the validity of absentee ballots, there was no variation in the actual standards that were applied. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that local election officials may use different methods for complying with statutory standards – election procedures necessarily vary from locality to locality depending upon available resources, personnel, and technology.

     I would note two other differences between Florida, 2000, and Minnesota, 2008.  In Bush v. Gore the Supreme Court interpreted Florida law as establishing a time limit for the counting of ballots, and time ran out on December 12, 2000.   In this case there was (as we all know) no time limit for the counting of ballots.  Finally, and most importantly, in a Presidential election Congress is free to reject the returns from any state and if no candidate receives a majority of the votes from the Electoral College the election is thrown into the House of Representatives.  If upon recount Florida had gone for Al Gore the Congress would not have accepted that result and the House, voting by states, would have installed George Bush as President anyway.  Al Gore eventually saw the handwriting on the wall and conceded.

I was a poll observer on election day. I saw:

One poll worker who called everybody "baby," as in: "Have you ever voted before, baby? Well, sweetie, you just fill out the bubble for the person you want, OK baby? But don't write anybody's name down there where it says 'write-in,' baby, because then you're voting twice. OK, baby?"

Lots of people who filled in the bubble and then also wrote in Obama and Biden. The machine spits out their ballot and they have to start all over with a new ballot.

One polite young man who had voted in the primary but was no longer on the rolls. We called the Board of Elections and they had canceled his registration due to a felony conviction on July 1. No notice, no opportunity to re-register. He is in fact eligible to vote as long as he is not incarcerated.

One Hispanic couple who didn't have any idea they had to register in advance. They couldn't vote.

Many people who were at the wrong precinct. I think we caught most of them because we had internet access at the library where this polling location was, and between my laptop and two other outside volunteers, we were able to find where people were supposed to go vote, rather than having them cast a provisional ballot at the wrong precinct, which would not have been valid.

One person who had no ID, only the last four digits of her Social Security number, which should have entitled her to vote provisionally. I had to rather firmly persuade the Presiding Poll Judge not to check the box that says she has to come back to confirm her identity within 10 days in order for her vote to count.

Poll workers very prone to just issue a provisional ballot at the drop of a hat–which are less likely to get counted, due to technical errors in filling out the required form.

A half-hour to 45-minute wait right when the polls opened at 6:30, but no lines at all at the usual rush time, 5 to 7:30 close. We were worried about turnout. The tentative summary currently shows that this precinct had 108 percent turnout, which can't be right.

Lots of first-time voters.

A friendly, helpful environment, even with the Republican observer there. (In Ohio, we have bipartisan rather than nonpartisan observers–I was appointed by Barack!)

Summit County's 57-40 margin and 45,000 vote edge contributed greatly to Ohio's 200,000 vote margin for Obama.

Presidential candidate John McCain said in last week's debate that ACORN, a group pushing to register over a million new voters this election cycle, "is now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy."  Wow.  Very strong words.  But is this really the case?  What kind of fraud are we talking about here?

The allegations seem to be that certain ACORN registration collectors, who were paid for each registration collected, filled in fictitious registrations in order to get paid more.  This is voter registration fraud.  Thus we get the the stories that Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, and the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys were newly registered to vote in Nevada this fall.  (After today's loss, the Cowboys MAY want to move to Nevada …)  But it's not an election fraud problem — that is, it has no potential to effect the election — unless Mickey Mouse and his friends show up to vote in November.

As Prof. Rick Hasen of Loyola Law School says, claims like McCain's are

hyperbole because there’s no good evidence that voter registration fraud leads to election fraud that changes elections. And it’s irresponsible because it gins up worries that the election is going to be stolen.

I think Prof. Hasen has it about right.

Now a word from our Irony Department.  The owner of Young Political Majors, a firm hired by the California GOP to sign up new voters, has been arrested on suspicion of voter registration fraud.  Mark Jacoby allegedly registered himself at a childhood address so that he would meet a requirement to gather signatures in California.  A warrant for Mr. Jacoby's arrest for voter registration fraud and perjury was also issued earlier this month by the L.A. D.A.'s office, arising out of charges that YPM allegedly tricked voters into registering as Republicans by saying they were signing a petition to toughen penalties against child molesters.  Sigh.

As a class project in my Election Law class, two of my students prepared a brief, nonpartisan "Elizabeth and Clarissa's Handy Dandy Summit County 2008 Election Guide." (I have changed their names to protect their anonymity.) They were dismayed to find how difficult it was to find information about various candidates and issues. They recommend such websites as Project Vote Smart, the League of Women Voters, the Summit County Board of Elections, and the Ohio Secretary of State. Their guide, with sources noted, is after the break.

The following is not a political advertisement, and nobody approved it.

Elizabeth and Clarissa's Handy Dandy Summit County 2008 Election Guide!

(Made in Association with Rock the Vote and Professor Lee's Election Law class)

Disclaimer: There are the issues according to our interpretation. All of our sources are listed. If you would like more information, you can look it up yourself. However, if you feel that we have blatantly misrepresented an issue or candidate . . . whine about it in your blog.

Happy voting!

Representatives

13^th District Court Congressional Representatives

David S. Potter

Bio:

• worked for Johnson and Johnson, Proctor and Gamble, and Cardiva Medical.

Issues:

• Supports Energy Independence – reducing our reliance on foreign oil, but using our own resources.
• Promotes exploration of alternative energy sources including nuclear power plants
• Will give tax breaks to companies using better energy sources.
• Increase efficiency of Medicare and Medicaid system, reducing government spending in these areas.
• Supports legislation to reduce illegal immigration and opposes any legislation that will offer more amnesty programs.
• Supports continuing the war on terrorism
• Supports increasing funding to intelligence agencies.
• Wants to widen I-71
• Implement Free Choice Flat Tax, Eliminate Death Tax and Capital Gains Tax
• Set single income tax rate at 17% for everyone. Information gathered at

Source: http://www.potterforcongress.com/issues.html

Betty Sutton

Bio:

• member of the House Rules Committee and the House Judiciary committee

Issues:

• Work toward keeping Oil prices down.
• Three part plan to revitalize the economy
  • Support Ethics regulations
  • Support Entreperneurial Innovation
  • Supports better education oppertunites
• Supports increasing veteran benefits.
• Dedicated to fighting corruption
• Would allow reimportation of drugs from Canada and other countries and supports legislation to set prices on prescription drugs.
• Supports protecting pension and retirement benefits, improving acess to health care and increasing the minimum wage.
• Supports legislation that would encourage small business.

Source:  http://www.bettysuttonforcongress.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={7B4FF5BC-F1CD-4EA2-953C-67E866D3C429

14^th District Congressional Representative

Steven C. Latourette

Bio:

• Served Seven Terms in the House of Representatives
• Graduated from the Cleveland Marshall College of Law

Issues:

• Support legislation to prohibit the funding of abortion and would allow abortions if the mother's life is in jeapordy
• Supports decreasing Taxes
• Eliminate Inheritance taxes
• Supports constitutional amendment that would define marriage at between a man and a women
• Supports increasing funding to the war on drugs
• Supports strengthening environmental control standards
• Supports Oil Drilling in Alaska
• Opposes time lines in Iraq
• Supports legislation to provide healthcare to the uninsured
• Help support legislation to fix Ohio roads.

Source: Information found at http://votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=21798

Bill O'Neill

Bio:

• Vietnam veteran
• Appellate judge until he ran for congress

Issues:

• Supports reducing the number of troops in Iraq and Increased veteran benefits
• Supports reducing imports from China until they meet labor and environmental regulations
• Supports expanding healthcare to all Americans and expanding Stem Cell research
• Opposes the No child Left behind act
• Supports increasing Pell Grants and Reducing Interest on Student loans.
• Supports reducing greenhouse gas emissions and clean energy standards.

Source: http://www.oneill08.com/homepage

David Macko

Issues:

• Never vote to institute a draft
• Never vote to increase taxes or regulations
• Promises to always support his constituents unless it violates the above principals

17^th District Congressional Representative

Duane v. Grassell

Bio:

• Math teacher

Issues:

• Supports balancing the budget and reducing the nations debt
• Supports imprisoning illegal immigrants living off welfare
• Opposes income tax
• Supports separating Medicare and Social Security from the general treasury, so that it can only pay out what goes into it
• Opposes funding for abortions and stem cell research
• Supports local government over federal government
• Opposes earmark legislation
• Opposes federal regulation of education – Supports State funded education
• Opposes any legislation that spends federal money to fight Global Warming
• Increase funding to the nation's intelligence agencies
• Supports reducing medical malpractice suits to drive down costs of healthcare

Source:  http://www.grassellforcongress.info/

Tim Ryan

Bio:

• Stuff

Issues:

• Supports eliminating public funding for abortions
• Supports increasing funding to public health services and universal healthcare
• Opposes the national missile defense program
• Supports campaign finance reform
• Supports measures to increase crime prevention and criminal rehabilitation
• Supports increasing funding to education programs
• Supports strengthening environmental regulations
• Supports improving the area through rivers, museums and amphitheaters

Source:  http://votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=45638

28th District State Senator

James R. Carr

• No Information available

Thomas C. Sawyer

Bio:

• Ohio House of Representatives 1977-1983
• Mayor of Akron 1984-1986

Issues:

• Voted ‘yes' on ‘Gambling Restrictions' Bill in 2007
• Voted ‘no' on ‘Lethal Force Against Intruders' Bill in 2008
• Voted ‘yes' on ‘Short Term Loans' Bill in 2008

Source: http://www.votesmart.org

Attorney General

Richard Corday

Bio:

• State Treasurer since 2006
• Previously worked in Attorney General's office
• University of Chicago Law School
• Clerked for 2 U.S. Supreme Court Justices

Issues:

• Wants to "enforce legal standards at charter schools that receive state funds."
• Advocates for stricter disclosure laws for lending companies when giving loans to students to pay for college.
• Target on prosecuting online predators, scam artists who target the elderly, white collar criminals.

Source:  www.cordrayforohio.com

Mike Crites

Bio:

• Former United States Attorney
• Vietnam veteran
• Ohio Northern School of Law
• Experience as a federal, state, and local prosecutor

Issues:

• Streamline procedures for consumer complaints against companies.
• Expanding new criminal justice technologies to help law enforcement.
• Restore credibility to the AG's office.

Source: www.critesforohio.com

Robert M. Owens

Bio:

• County Prosecutor
• Clerked for U.S. District Court Judge
• Capital University Law School

Issues:

• Opposes "overreaching bureaucratic regulation being imposed by government agencies on small businesses and government managed free trade agreements which favor large corporations and special interests over small businesses and consumers."
• Make more AG's office activities available online for the public to review.
• Eliminate the "slush fund" system at the AG's office
• Expand law enforcement training of conceal and carry laws.
• Supports the choice of parents to home-school children.
• Enforce legal restrictions on abortion according to ORC §2919
• Reduce judge activism

Source: www.owens2008.com

Justice for the Ohio Supreme Court

Maureen O'Connor

Bio:

• Magistrate in Summit County 1985-1993
• Summit county Prosecutor 1995-1999
• Lieutenant Governor 1999-2003
• Ohio Supreme Court Justice since 2003
• Cleveland-Marshall College of Law

Judicial Philosophy:

• Interpret the law as written, not based on personal beliefs
• Importance of Separation of Powers

Source: www.oconnorforjustice.com

Joseph D. Russo

Bio:

• Cuyahoga County Common Please Court Judge, 2001-present
• Case Western Reserve School of Law

Judicial Philosophy:

• Restore philosophical and political balance to the Supreme Court.
• Reduce the influence of cash contributions to judicial elections.

Source: http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080928/NEWS09/809280322/-1/NEWS

Justice for the Ohio Supreme Court

Peter Sikora

Bio:

• Judge for the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
• President of the Ohio Association of Juvenile and Family court Judges
• Graduated from Case Western Reserve University of Law

Judicial philosophy/endorsements:

• Believes in protecting voter confidence by lessening favorable judicial decisions for large campaign contributors
• Supports increasing affordable legal help
• Recommended by the Ohio State Bar association
• Supports Scared Straight program for female offenders

Source: http://www.sikoraforjustice.com/About.html & http://www.lwvohio.org/pdf/LWVOEF%20Fall%202008%20Voter%20Guide.pdf

Evelyn Stratton

Bio:

• born to missionary parents in Bangkok Thailand
• Graduated from The Ohio State University College of Law

Judicial Philosophy/endorsements:

• Voted favorable to large campaign contributors 55%, and against 45%
• Encourages affordable legal help
• Led efforts to streamline appeals in adoption cases
• Helped form the Supreme Court of Ohio Advisory committee on Mental Illness – dedicated to mental health initiatives in the court system
• Won award for her leadership on behalf of abused and neglected children
• Supported by the Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio

Source: http://www.strattonforsupremecourt.com/?page=about_justice_stratton &             http://www.lwvohio.org/pdf/LWVOEF%20Fall%202008%20Voter%20Guide.pdf

9^th District Court of Appeals Judge

Eve Belfance

Bio:

• Member of the Akron Human Society
• Member of the League of Women voters
• Helped develop the Akron Court's DUI Court.

Judicial Goal:

• Interested in ensuring public safety, securing neighborhoods and families, and a fair judicial system.

Source:  http://judgebelfance.com/home.aspx

William Wellemeyer

Bio:

• Graduated from the University of Akron School of Law
• Currently the assistant prosecuting attorney for the Summit County Prosecutor

Issues:

• Supports an impartial and restrained judiciary
• Member of the NRA and Sons of the American Legion
• Endorsed my May Taylor, CPA, Ohio Auditor of State

Source: http://wellemeyerforjudge.com/_wsn/page2.html

Summit County Executive

Jim Laria

Bio:

• Clerk of Akron Municipal Court since 1997
• University of Akron graduate
• Bailiff for Judge Spicer 1979-1980

Source: www.electjimlaria.com

Russ Pry

Bio:

• Summit County Executive since 2007
• Kent State graduate
• University of Akron School of Law graduate

Issues:

• Job creation as #1 priority
• Open-door policy of interaction between political groups and public interest groups.
• Stressed importance on regionalism, economic development, tax incentives.

Source: www.russpry.com

State Issues

State Issue #1 : Change deadline for submitting signatures on initiatives from 90 days pre-election to 125 days pre-election.

Pro:

1) "ISSUE 1 PREVENTS WASTE OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS.

In 2007, taxpayers paid more than $300,000 to advertise information about a ballot issue that ultimately did not qualify for the ballot.  Additional expenditures were incurred by local boards of elections to verify signatures.  Issue 1 helps prevent this wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars from occurring in the future by establishing firm deadlines for the administration of state ballot issues and resolving legal challenges.

2) "ISSUE 1 HELPS MAINTAIN VOTER CONFIDENCE IN ELECTIONS.

Only statewide issues that qualify for voter consideration should be printed on the

ballot.  During the last two general elections, however, litigation had not concluded at

the time ballots had to be printed so voters considered issues that were ultimately not

counted.  Issue 1's new deadlines helps maintain voter confidence in elections by

preventing this waste from occurring.

3) "ISSUE 1 PROMOTES EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE ELECTIONS.

Issue 1 establishes clear timelines for filing and reviewing statewide issues petitions, and for filing legal challenges to those petitions.  This helps ensure smoother and more

efficient elections."

Source: Ohio State Representatives Jon Peterson and Dan Stewart, the group appointed by the Ohio General Assembly to prepare the argument for Issue 1

(http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/Upload/ballotboard/2008/1ArgFor.pdf).

Con:

1) "Issue #1 creates delays in new laws taking effect.

The Constitution reserves to the People the power to propose laws, amendments to the

constitution, and to approve or reject laws passed by the legislature.  Issue #1 creates earlier filing deadlines which can cause a referendum petition to effectively delay for months the effective date of a law passed by the legislature.  This is because the deadline for filing a referendum petition depends on when the law being referred to the voters was passed by the legislature.  If the deadline to file the petition is after the new proposed deadline in the Constitution, the law referred by the petition won't be able to be on the ballot until the next election, which could be over a year away.

2) "The immediate effect of the filing of a referendum petition is to stop the law from going into effect until voters decide the issue at the ballot.  State Issue #1 gives people with the money to circulate petitions for hundreds of thousands of signatures increased power over the state legislature to delay laws passed from going into effect for months or even more than a year.

3) "Issue #1 means More Expensive State Issue Campaigns.

The delays caused by Issue #1 can be expensive.  Putting the issues off so long may mean that large amounts of money will have to be spent to get the attention of voters.  Millions of dollars are already being spent for issues that are fresh in the voters' minds.  More money is likely to be spent to inform voters when the issue is stale.  With these powers reserved to the People, this proposed amendment makes it even more expensive and difficult for ordinary citizens to undertake the efforts to speak through the state initiative and referendum process."

Source: Prepared by the Ohio Ballot Board in the absence of any submission in opposition, as required by Ohio Revised Code Section 3505.063(B)

(http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/Upload/ballotboard/2008/1ArgAgainst.pdf).

State Issue #2: Borrow $400 million for environmental conservation, preservation, and revitalization purposes.

Pro:

1) Voting YES for Issue #2 l "protects clean water, creates jobs, conserves natural habitat, preserves family farms and does not raise taxes.

Source: Ohio State Representative Barbara Sears, Ohio State Senators Mark Wagoner and Sue Morano, the group appointed by the Ohio General Assembly to prepare the argument for Issue 2 (http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/Upload/ballotboard/2008/2ArgFor.pdf).

Con:

1) "Issue #2 Would Authorize the Government to Spend More in Bond Money.

The economy is in bad condition. When times are hard, this is when we must tighten our belts and spend only what is necessary and only what we can cover with incoming revenues. Issue #2 authorizes the government to take out more debts to pay for environmental revitalization and conservation. While this may be worthwhile, the State of Ohio should not be going into further debt.

2) "Passing Issue #2 Means Taxpayers Will Have to Pay Back These Bonds.

Issue #2 authorizes $400 Million Dollars in debt to be used for conservation purposes.  You and your children will have to pay this money back.  This money could be retained by taxpayers for their own purposes or used for other plans and directly helping people in need."

Source: Prepared by the Ohio Ballot Board in the absence of any submission in opposition, as required by Ohio Revised Code Section 3505.063(B)

(http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/Upload/ballotboard/2008/2ArgAgainst.pdf).

State Issue #3: Creates constitutional amendment protecting property rights along with the passage of the Great Lakes Water Compact.

Pro:

1) Voting ‘yes' on Issue #3 "protects the private property rights of Ohioans, safeguards

Ohio's natural resources, and maintains the stability of Ohio's jobs and economy by

recognizing and protecting property interests in ground water, lakes and watercourses."

Source: Ohio State Senators Timothy J. Grendell and Capri Cafaro, the group appointed

by the Ohio General Assembly to prepare the argument for Issue 3

(http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/Upload/ballotboard/2008/3ArgFor.pdf).

Con:

1) "Issue #3 is an unnecessary addition to the Ohio Constitution. 

The Supreme Court of Ohio already determined that private property owners have rights to the ground water underlying their land and to the watercourse flowing on and through their land.

2) "Issue # 3 makes changes to the Constitution so specific that they mention legal doctrines that are not contained in the Constitution.

What if those legal doctrines change by court rulings? Parts of our Constitution would no longer be relevant. That is not appropriate for our Constitution, which is supposed to be the voice of the People.

3) "Issue #3 does not give an accurate picture of a private property owner's rights.

Property owners do not actually own the water beneath their land.  They have a right to a reasonable use of that water, but the state always has the power to regulate how it is used and take it for just compensation.  Issue #3 gives private property owners the false sense of security that their land cannot be taken away at a later date.

4) "We do not know what the future will hold.

We should not limit ourselves by passing this amendment.

Source: Prepared by the Ohio Ballot Board in the absence of any submission in opposition, as required by Ohio Revised Code Section 3505.063(B)

(http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/Upload/ballotboard/2008/3ArgAgainst.pdf).

Issue 5: Referendum on legislation making changes to check cashing lending.

• Caps Interest rate payday lenders may charge at 28%.
• Limit borrowable amount to 25% of their monthly income, not to exceed $500.
• Limits barrowers to four loans per year.
• Minimum of 30 day period for barrower to pay back loan.

A YES vote will cap the annual interest for payday lenders only at 28%.

A NO vote will not put the issue into effect

Pros:

1) Lenders may currently charge up to 391% interest.

2) It breaks the "cycle of debt" many customers are trapped in.

3) Helps insure that customers only barrow what they can pay back.

Cons:

1) Payday lenders say they will be forced out of business by this law

2) Will take away access to emergency assistance loans that are cheaper  (if repaid on time) then overdraft fees

3) Limits barrower options. Each barrower has the right to choose the terms of their loans and what they do with their money.

Issue 6: Constitutional amendment to allow for a casino near Wilmington in southwest Ohio.

• Authorizes a privately owned casino in Clinton county that will be taxed 30% of its Gross Casino receipts.
• The tax allocation would be used to:
• Fund a gaming regulatory committee
• Up to 1% would be used to support programs for gambling addicts
• 10% of the tax would go to Clinton County. The remaining proceeds would be distributed to the remaining counties.
• Casino operator must make an initial investment of 600 Million dollars in a casino resort, including hotel and other amenities.
• Licensing fee caped at $15 million, which will be credited against the tax on the gross receipts.
• The state may not limit the amount of wages or hours of operation of the casino.
• If another casino enters Ohio, this Casino will pay the same tax rate as that casino.

A YES vote allows the Casino Amendment

A NO vote does not allow it.

Pros:

1) Keep competitive with the other 38 states that have casinos, instead of losing money to other states.

2) All counties in Ohio could receive some tax revenue from the casino.

3) Casino will create jobs and stimulate the economy with hotels, restaurant and other business.

Cons:

1) Will increase the number of Gambling addicts in Ohio and the allocated money for treatment of such problems may not be sufficient.

2) If an Indian Casino that is tax exempt enters Ohio, the casino may not pay at all.

3) Amendment reads more like a business contract with one Casino. It is not appropriate for a constitutional amendment.

Source: http://www.lwvohio.org/pdf/LWVOEF%20Fall%202008%20Voter%20Guide.pdf

Ohio looks to be an important swing state (again!) in the upcoming Presidential elections. But you might not have realized that legal issues may determine the outcome. Efforts to settle these issues in advance seem to have failed. Here are a few of the battles currently being fought:

Five-Day Window: Republicans have sued to try to prevent voters from registering to vote (must be at least 30 days before the election) and then, on the same day, voting by absentee ballot (may be done up to 35 days before the election) during the 5-day window when they are eligible to do both. They claim to be concerned about vote fraud.

Vote Caging: Democrats are seeking to end the practice in some counties of eliminating or challenging the registration status of some voters based on mailed notices having been returned undelivered. They claim that typos, students away at college, and military personnel may have their votes unfairly taken away.

Meanwhile, in Cincinnati, voters who responded to an erroneous absentee ballot application mailed out by the McCain campaign may find their applications ruled invalid by Democratic Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, although she has offered an easy way for voters to correct their applications. Pho has the statutory language.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could just focus on which candidates were supported by more people?