EMAIL DETAILS

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Joshua Dorner <dorner@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 15:26:47
To: Sara DuBois<dubois.sara@gmail.com>; Jon Soltz<jon.soltz@gmail.com>; Eric Schmeltzer<eric@schmeltzerpr.com>; Tom Perriello<tperriello@americanprogress.org>
Subject: Fwd: Memo: Obama For America Ohio Lawsuit

Doubling down, it seems.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Romney Press Shop <Press@mittromney.com>
Date: Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 3:09 PM
Subject: Memo: Obama For America Ohio Lawsuit
To:


[image: Description: cid:image001.png@01CD731B.21E01FE0]****

****

****

*MEMORANDUM*****

****

*From: *Katie Biber, General Counsel****

*To: *Interested Parties****

*Date:* 8/5/2012****

*Re:* Obama For America Ohio Lawsuit****

****

*To View This Memo Online, Click Here*: http://mi.tt/RGYRq0 ****

****

On July 17, 2012, Obama for America and the Democratic National Committee
filed suit against the Attorney General and Secretary of State of Ohio. In
their lawsuit, the Obama campaign and the DNC argue it is “arbitrary” and
unconstitutional to provide three extra days of early, in-person voting to
military voters and their families. At least 20 times in their legal
papers, they argue that there is no good reason to give special flexibility
to military voters – and that this policy adopted by the Ohio legislature
is so wrong it is unconstitutional.****

** **

We disagree with the basic premise that it is “arbitrary” and
unconstitutional to give three extra days of in-person early voting to
military voters and their families, and believe it is a dangerous and
offensive argument for President Obama and the DNC to make. It is not only
constitutional, but commendable that the Ohio legislature granted military
voters and their families this accommodation. It is despicable for the
Obama campaign to challenge Ohio’s lawful decision.****

** **

But this lawsuit is not about us. Last week, respected military groups
intervened in the Obama campaign’s lawsuit. They argue that it is
absolutely constitutional to give military voters special flexibility in
voting, and that it is offensive for the Commander-in-Chief’s political
campaign to argue otherwise. They correctly point out that there is good
reason to grant military voters special flexibility; members of the
military—including those stationed here within the United States—are
subject to restrictions, uncertainties, and risks that often make it more
difficult for them to vote. We agree with these military groups.****

** **

The Obama campaign may not like the early voting policy that the Ohio
legislature set. This does not mean the policy is unconstitutional, and it
certainly does not mean that a federal court should be permitted to remake
it. ****

****

### ****

****

****

[image: Description: cid:image002.png@01CD731B.21E01FE0]****

** **

** **

** **