Here's my take on the following article from the Sun Sentinel. Judge rules against extending voter registration.
Excerpt: A federal judge has rejected a request from the Florida Democratic Party to force the state to extend a voter-registration deadline because of Hurricane Michael.
U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle turned down the party’s request for a temporary restraining order to extend the registration deadline to Oct. 16, a week later than the original Tuesday deadline. The party contended an extension was needed because the hurricane, which devastated parts of the Panhandle on Wednesday, could prevent people from registering to vote in the Nov. 6 election.
Secretary of State Ken Detzner this week issued a directive authorizing county elections supervisors whose offices were closed Tuesday to accept paper registration applications on the day that their offices reopen. Detzner did not extend a Tuesday night deadline for voters to register online.
Now here's what the federal judge had to say about his ruling to reject the request...
“The party has asked for a statewide extension of one week for all forms of registration. But there is no justification for this,” Hinkle wrote. “Some parts of the state were affected little by the hurricane. Extending the deadline in those parts of the state would not level the playing field or provide a remedy for the hurricane’s effects.
Bottom Line: On Wednesday I advanced the question. When exactly did voter registration deadlines become partisan events? In that story I pointed out essentially what the federal judge stated but a bit more bluntly as I’m inclined to do. Here’s an excerpt from what I said: Why would Democrats be so concerned about suing for an extra week of registration time and how exactly is this quote explained: If Detzner doesn’t extend the deadline by a week, “thousands of eligible voters will be disenfranchised.”
How is it exactly that the Democrats know that there would be thousands of additional people who’d register to vote in a single day in the least populated region of our state no less? Isn’t that a statement of fact that can’t under any circumstance be substantiated (legally anyway)? There are two sides to stories and one side to facts. Here’s a fact and let me be clear. The statement by Florida’s Democratic Party that “thousands of eligible voters will be disenfranchised” cannot legally be substantiated. So, which is it? Is the party making that number up or are they involved in illegal activity? I report, you decide.
That question still demands an answer. Especially now that my point has been made crystal clear by the federal ruling.
Photo by: Getty Images North America