Blaming skeptics in Ohio

[seemslikeadream]

One of the strengths of American democracy is that citizens are free to question the results of an election. But four lawyers who did just that in Ohio, contesting President George W. Bush's victory, are 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.

...

Ohio had many problems on Election Day, including lines of up to 10 hours to vote, and a shortage of voting machines in African-American neighborhoods. But they were nowhere near widespread enough to erase Bush's margin of more than 118,000 votes. The lawyers also charged fraud, but they never proved their case.

Ohio's attorney general has asked the State Supreme Court to sanction 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 could deter people from raising concerns about future elections, and 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.

more
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/02/03/opinion/edohio.html

[annabanana]

1. How can we rally to their aid?

Where should the letters go?
On edit: I found it.. defense fund and extended story heres;

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1138

[seemslikeadream]

2. OH Sanctions = Unitended consequence is more fraud documentation

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x315246

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

3. "Even though their case was weak..."

Reporting/Editorializing?

:shrug:

[seemslikeadream]

4. my bad - they were editorializing

too bad they can't do some reporting.