Rush Limbaugh: Urging Republicans To Commit a Felony?

Photo of Tim Graham.
By Tim Graham | March 26, 2008 - 12:01 ET

Liberals get a bit wiggy when it comes to electoral shenanigans in Ohio. On The Huffington Post, Ari Melber accuses Rush Limbaugh of encouraging Republicans to commit a felony by crossover voting for Hillary Clinton. Those "lying voters" are under investigation, although prosecutions are "considered unlikely," he reports:

"Operation Chaos," Rush Limbaugh's campaign urging Republicans to vote for Hillary Clinton in Democratic primaries, has been very effective. It doubled Republican turnout in Ohio and Texas, boosting Clinton and prolonging the Democratic race. But in Ohio, it was also almost certainly illegal.

Ohio law requires that citizens genuinely support a political party in order to vote in its primary. To change parties for a primary, a citizen must pledge, under the penalty of election falsification, that she is affiliated with the party and "supports" its principles. Lying on the pledge is a felony, punishable by up to a year in jail and a $2,500 fine. The law also stipulates that poll workers have a "duty" to challenge voters who are "not a member of the political party whose ballot the person desires to vote."

Melber, a writer with the far-left Nation magazine, concluded:

Limbaugh loves playing up partisan fights for his audience. But this is not only about politics. Limbaugh abused his listeners' trust and encouraged potentially illegal conduct. And after a Republican Justice Department spent years hyping voter fraud charges, now some of the most blatant election law violations are being stoked, repeatedly and unrepentantly, by one of the most prominent figures in Republican politics.

—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center

Topics:

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Sanctity of Law

March 26, 2008 - 12:15 ET by allanf

The law is very selective. Only people who were members of other parties are required to sign a loyalty oath?  Sounds like an eqaul protection violation if all  party members are not required to sign such an oath at time of first registration with the party.

So lets see, according to this guy, any Democrats who voted in the primary but don't support abortion or gay marriage can also be prosecuted?

Without a definition in the code of "principles of the party" the law is not enforcable.

That's a tough law...

March 26, 2008 - 12:08 ET by Saint Zero

Where I live, that law would have been declared racist and been struck down in nano-seconds. Amazing the hypocrisy our government will allow.

I'm getting a kick out of

March 26, 2008 - 12:10 ET by bigtimer

I'm getting a kick out of the left trying to make hay out of all of this....they of all people who have done the exact same thing to us....like Rush says...Bring it on!

Btw...Ari says the most blatant election laws are now being violated...oh please..give me a break...try King co. in Washington State for just one little example, New Mexico would be another that comes to mind, nothing was or is ever done about this, dead voters and all.

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

So, a dem in Ohio, that

March 26, 2008 - 12:13 ET by bassndude

So, a dem in Ohio, that dosnt support all of the dems platform, i.e. abortion, high taxes, all the social programs, national health care and rule changes in mid stream, can all be charged.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

The Dems selected McCain for us

March 26, 2008 - 12:16 ET by ballwana13

Operation CHAOS follows ultra-left Daily Kos's efforts in January to sway Republican voters to switch parties for the open primaries and vote the way they directed. It has gotten so bad that both Clinton and Obama were placing radio ads until Monday (the deadline for making the change) in PA targeting Republicans to switch parties to vote for their candidate.

Nobody is going to be indicted as the laws in Ohio are ambiguous at best and likely unconstitutional anyways as they can't legislate a voter's intent and expect them not to have the option of changing their mind in the voter's booth now or in the future.

Libs are trying to scare Republicans who want to switch parties for the primaries and keep the fight going. I'm so happy to see that Operation CHAOS is in full effect and doing what it can to cause Dems and libs in the media to be confused and divisive.

Fight you libs, bloody yourselves cause you won't have any strength for November.

 

Florida had a closed primary

March 26, 2008 - 12:21 ET by sarcasmo

McCain won, with the support of our RINO governor, anyway, and that's really what propelled him to victory.
JMR

A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.

An Ohioan can vote for

March 26, 2008 - 12:53 ET by stratman

An Ohioan can vote for whomever they want in the Primaries.  The poll workers can challenge a voter who changes Parties.  The voter is supposed to sign a pledge they intend to honor their new Party and that they are changing Parties with honest intent.  A poll worker may challenge the voter if they believe the intent is false.  Also,  the voter may refuse to sign the pledge.

Regardless, it would be illegal in Ohio for a poll worker to deny a person their vote for any reason other than they are not legally able to vote at all.  The voter must be given the ballot and allowed to vote for the Party they declare at that time. 

The key to Ohio law is that a challenged ballot becomes a Provisional Ballot and its veracity will be determined within 10 days after the polls close.

I know of one person who was told they could not change their affiliation when they went to vote.  That was a clear violation of Ohio law, and possibly Federal law.  And it was a Democrat that prevented my friend from voting as they intended.

More here and here.

RRAM Tough! 

Good Post

March 26, 2008 - 15:26 ET by allanf

Good Post. It seems the Ohio system of "challenges", especially if it is unevenly enforced comes dangerously close to violating this provision of the voting rights act.

No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives, Delegates or Commissioners from the Territories or possessions, at any general, special, or primary election held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any such candidate

The Ohio voting law in this

March 26, 2008 - 16:15 ET by stratman

The Ohio voting law in this area is abominable.  It would not survive a challenge in court.  The law is akin to expresing fealty to a lord before privileges are granted.

Voting is a RIGHT (and a privilege in some states) and should NEVER require an oath of loyalty/subservience to a party or individual in order to vote as one chooses AND have that vote count.

I'm still sore over my own experience with voter disenfranchisment several years ago.  I did not care for the encumbent mayor who was running unopposed.  I wanted to write in a name.  The ladies manning the polling desk said:

  •   I could only write in an approved write-in candidate name

  •   I could only see the approved write-in names if I asked first, otherwise they were not to be displayed openly and no signage about write-in candidates available upon request either

  •  any unapproved write-in name would not be counted.

  • one lady became distraught when another showed me the guidebook on the rules which was prepared for the polling places/workers.

I'M NOT ALLOWED TO LOOK AT THE RULEBOOK!

WRITE-N CANDIDATES NAMES HIDDEN!

MY VOTE WOULD NOT BE COUNTED!

So far, the only true voter disenfranchisment I've witnessed was my own experience and it was perpetrated by Democrats working for the Election Board.

RRAM Tough! 

Tim. Compared to organized national electoral vote swaping?

March 26, 2008 - 12:20 ET by Gary Hall

Tim. Compared to organized national electoral vote swaping

This is in a primary? What about organized cheating in a national presidential election, by the Democrats? 

I don't seem to recall the media getting upset when the lefties organized national web based schemes to swap votes from one state for antother in order to boost the total votes cast for Nader, without endangering the electorial votes Gore needed to obtain. This also was going on in the 2004 campaign cycle. Here's a how the Washington Post saw it playing out in their acceptable scam, Group Pushes Kerry-Nader Vote Swap.

"If 600 voters who cast ballots for Nader in Florida had instead voted for Gore and 600 voters who cast ballots for Gore in Texas had instead voted for Nader, George W. Bush would have lost the entire election."

I'm surprised the Washington Post is not listed as a founder of the group. Here's the referenced site:  Uniting Progressives through Strategic Voting

It's only bad if it pisses off the Democrats and the liberal MSM - otherwise, must be OK. gary

unconstitutional

March 26, 2008 - 12:23 ET by wizardjr

Under the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution, forcing voters to sign a loyalty oath in order to vote is strictly illegal. This law won't last five minutes in Federal Court. Bring it on Ohio. I'd like to see the jackasses that passed this law in orange jump suits.

Democrats Raised Cain About A Loyalty Oath in Virgina

March 26, 2008 - 12:33 ET by allanf

The Democrats raised the roof when Republicans in Virgina tried to require a loyalty oath for crossover voters.

http://www.raisingkaine.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=11539

I doubt such oaths would withstand scruitiny. 

 

 

Of course the oath will not

March 26, 2008 - 12:45 ET by bassndude

Of course the oath will not stand up to judicial muster. I would push the issue, and force them to file charges. It could be viewed as an attempt to coerce the voter, which is also illegal.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

delete double

March 26, 2008 - 13:14 ET by motherbelt

delete double

Voting Rights Act

March 26, 2008 - 12:42 ET by allanf

The Voting Rights Act states:

 in determining whether any individual is qualified under State law or laws to vote in any election, apply any standard, practice, or procedure different from the standards, practices, or procedures applied under such law or laws to other individuals within the same county, parish, or similar political subdivision who have been found by State officials to be qualified to vote;

......

No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives, Delegates or Commissioners from the Territories or possessions, at any general, special, or primary election held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any such candidate

Now does that seem compatible with a loyalty oath, especially since signing of the oath was not uniform -- even on election day.

 

Thanks; that was going to

March 26, 2008 - 13:15 ET by motherbelt

Thanks; that was going to be my question: isn't requiring a "loyalty oath" illegal?

Oh, and by the way, who is handling the filing of charges against the
dailyKos, since they did it first? Or is crossing over only illegal for Republicans?

Democrats like to change

March 26, 2008 - 13:48 ET by kg

Democrats like to change the rules towards their favor as well as laws for the same reason. It was Hillary who herself said if elected she would make the 'vast right wing conspiracy' a crime.

"Forget change, I want improvement!"

Update from the Cleveland Plain Deceiver Rag

March 26, 2008 - 12:29 ET by IgnatzJFahrquar

 

Democrat Sec of State Brunner does not want the investigation to go any further.

http://blog.clevelan...

Only in Cuyahoga County ... sheesh, what a joke here in Ohio.

"All generalizations are false, including this one.” Mark Twain

Democrats

March 26, 2008 - 12:34 ET by Scrapiron

Democrats don't reconize no stinkin constitution that gets in the way of their criminal actions.

 

Old, Retired and glad of it.

Obamacans.

March 26, 2008 - 12:35 ET by Missouri Conservative

So if Barack Obama encourages Republicans to crossover and vote for him, is he not committing a felony too?

"women and minorities hardest hit"

Constitutional question

March 26, 2008 - 12:39 ET by KC Mulville

This is not rhetorical - I genuinely don't know the real answer here. I have my belief, but my belief may be wrong, and I'm curious if anyone can correct me.

I checked into this Ohio law. From my non-lawyer reading of it, it seems to be a law where the election commissioner is required to disallow a primary vote if someone can show evidence that the voter does not support the party.

So here's my question: doesn't that require that an election commissioner (i.e., a public official) enforce party loyalty?

Doesn't that immediately make the law unconstitutional?

I would thinks so, KC. I

March 26, 2008 - 13:18 ET by motherbelt

I would thinks so, KC. I don't know how anyone can "enforce" party loyalty.

And isn't it interesting that Liberals won't support a priest's right to refuse Holy Communion to a politician who obviously holds pro-abortion views, but want "party loyalty" enforced and one's right to vote negated at their whim?

Good catch, MB

March 26, 2008 - 21:26 ET by KC Mulville

Another curveball: remember the 2000 Missouri senate election? It began as a contest between Mel Carnahan and John Ashcroft, but Carnahan died just weeks before the election. By them, it was legally too late to remove his name from the ballot, so the election went on anyway. In so doing, Missouri elected a dead man.

How can anyone claim that in order to vote in the ensuing Democratic primary two years later, Missourians were required to vote for a dead man?

While we're on this subject:  You see, this is what happens when humans get involved. No matter how nice the intentions, when humans try to manage complex systems (e.g., the law), they inevitably create conflicts like this. This is why we have a judiciary, to resolve these conflicts. This is also why the proper function of the judiciary is not to get involved and create more complexity by creating their own laws. Instead, their job is strictly to untangle these conflicts. That's why originalism works - it forces the judiciary to do its proper job.

Open primaries

March 26, 2008 - 16:57 ET by SGriffis

Several states have open primaries. This means that anyone can vote for whichever party they want to regardless of their actual party affiliation or even if they're not affiliated. So, there's nothing illegal about what Rush is suggesting. You can bet that Democrats are crossing over.

 Most states have closed primaries. Voters can only vote for the party that they are affiliated with. Here in NY, for example, only registered Democrats and Republicans can vote in a presidential primary and they have to vote in their parties primary, they can't cross over.

So Bill O'Reiley can only

March 26, 2008 - 17:54 ET by Dan The Man 2

So Bill O'Reiley can only vote in the Genreal election since he is independent?  The parties can choose who they want if they wish, but if they open it to a vote by the public payed with public monies then it is open to anyone.  I as an independent should be allowed top vote for a party canditate since most likely only a Democrat or a Republican will be President.  So I should be able to say which one I want to be on teh ballot come November.  Do you have to show any proof of being Democrat or Republican in any priimary?

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

Facially unconstitutional law.

March 26, 2008 - 12:42 ET by Socrates

A person's right to change their mind is unalienable. The government has no business forcing me to select a party or to declare that I support one or the other, except as I vote. I'm supporting or not supporting a candidate, with my one vote; my motives are my business.

Ohioans should march up to the voting registrar and ask for a new voter registration once a day. "I changed my mind."

Absolutely! So you sign the

March 26, 2008 - 13:20 ET by motherbelt

Absolutely! So you sign the pledge to support the Democrat party, then say "Well, the next day I regretted it; I'm going back to being a Republican."

Let's promote the oath

March 26, 2008 - 12:48 ET by Semperright

 I say we make people take the loyalty oath.  It should be done at the DMV and put on the drivers licence like the organ donar stamp.  If you change your party you have to change your license.  At least they would have to show their ID to vote.  I know its unfair to the citizenly challenenged and the mortally capable that vote now in Ohio but you can't please everyone.

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference.
The MARINES don't have that problem."
President Ronald Reagan - 1985

All this coming from the

March 26, 2008 - 12:57 ET by oldArmy

All this coming from the party that doesn't want people to have to show a photo ID to vote. Hillary now for the electoral college. All aboard!!!....next stop....Hypocrisyville.

 

What loyalty pedge?

March 26, 2008 - 13:01 ET by totalpakaj

I voted in Ohio, and the poll worker asked me what ballot I wanted, I said the Democrat one and voted for Hillary. I was in and out in under 3 minutes. They picked our candidate in Michigan, so I decided to return the favor. The best part of the runup to the election was when an Obama canvasser knocked on my door and I told them exactly what I was going to do. The look on that poor girl's face made me think she probably threw up her tofu lunch soon after.

Voting Rights Act

March 26, 2008 - 13:09 ET by allanf

The voting rights act states:

in determining whether any individual is qualified under State law or laws to vote in any election, apply any standard, practice, or procedure different from the standards, practices, or procedures applied under such law or laws to other individuals within the same county, parish, or similar political subdivision who have been found by State officials to be qualified to vote;

So if you were not asked to take the pledge, no other voter could be asked to take the pledge.

me too..

March 26, 2008 - 20:48 ET by Xango Annie

I did the exact same thing...asked for the ballot, she never questioned it at all. In and out in 2 shakes of a lambs tail...

Tell Huffpo to lighten up!

March 26, 2008 - 15:00 ET by IamTinman

In the 1959, the graveyards of Illinois opened and disgorged their dead  for one day so they could vote for JFK, and cemetaries in south Texas were notorious for emptying for a day every 4 years.  Voter manipulation is is an old american tradition practiced by both parties. Rush is simply refining the exercise. The dems are just mad because it's working.

I voted for Hillary in California 100% legally before Operation Chaos. It was the first time I've ever voted democratic except for when I voted for Schwarzenager and I thought I was voting republican then.

 

  

 

This gets funnier everyday

March 26, 2008 - 15:00 ET by Free Thinker

This gets funnier everyday and I am sure Rush Limbaugh is getting great satisfaction seeing the left act like buffoons.  If they're so worried about loyalty, perhaps it would be nice to see either of the democrat nominees be loyal to our own country. 

Loyalty oath? What country is this, the former U.S.S.R?

March 26, 2008 - 17:52 ET by R D Helm

I wonder if Ari thinks such laws should be enforced against the dems who crossed-over and gave us McCain?

Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!

 

RD... Why of course

March 26, 2008 - 20:57 ET by bigtimer

RD...

Why of course not!

Doesn't apply if you are a leftist.

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

#1:  I would challenge

March 26, 2008 - 19:09 ET by seanrobins

#1:  I would challenge anyone to show us a single instance in which anyone has ever been charged, let alone prosecuted under such a silly statute.

 #2:  Can we all spell "Unconstitutional"? 

sean robins
www.seanrobins.com

Missing the point

March 26, 2008 - 19:54 ET by hoystory

The real news here is that the Democratic Party apparently has something called "principles."

In just about every school

March 26, 2008 - 19:57 ET by Semperright

In just about every school in America 

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference.
The MARINES don't have that problem."
President Ronald Reagan - 1985

hoy... The real news here

March 26, 2008 - 20:02 ET by bigtimer

hoy...

The real news here is that the Democratic Party apparently has something called "principles."

Suddenly...when it is convenient....ROFL!

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

»→ Democrat Principles

March 26, 2008 - 20:12 ET by Cool Arrow

I figure, what the heck.

I can just as easily vote against someone as for another.

I voted against the Dems by voting for a Dem.  It sounds somewhat Kerryesque, but it makes perfect sense to me. 

♣ a seal

hoystory... "The real news

March 26, 2008 - 22:55 ET by Clear thinker

hoystory...

"The real news here is that the Democratic Party apparently has something called "principles."

Is that even possible?

"Abstain from McCain"

There is barely a dimes

March 26, 2008 - 22:51 ET by ConservativeRex

There is barely a dimes worth of difference between any of the candidates. So those of you who voted for McCain  certainly were supporting the "principles" of the democrat party. Meanwhile, I voted for the Hildabeast here in Texas, now, fight it out!

The point is moot

March 27, 2008 - 21:28 ET by Edward Lee

All this talk about Rush encouraging people to violate the pledge to "support" the Democratic party's principles, and whether or not the pledge is constitutional or not, is moot. As Rush explains at http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_032408/content/01125108.guest.html

he does no such thing. After all, if you're a conservative, they don't call themselves liberal. They actually encourage crossing over party lines. Democracy (which, last I heard, means people can vote for who they want to) is what they're named after. Just because most Democrats don't actually uphold those principles (vetoing the primary voters' will via superdelegates in case they make a "mistake" comes to mind) doesn't mean people can't be a Democrat for the day. If there happens to be a little "Chaos" in the ranks afterwards, it'll be the candidates' own fratricidal insticts that will be to blame. No one's forcing Hillary to stay in the race. Pledge away in good faith!