On  July 17, the campaign to re-elect President Barack Obama, the National  Democratic Party and the Ohio State Democratic Party filed suit in  federal court over the curtailment of Ohio's early voting time period.

It  has been reported that the President and the other plaintiff's were  objecting to allowing the military and their families overseas 3 extra  days to vote. But according to a report in Buzzfeed.com that may not  actually be the case. According to the article, the objection is that  the changes in the laws give the military overseas extra time to vote  and not giving the same to local Ohio voters.

The  Obama campaign said in a lawsuit drawing attention this weekend that  the Ohio Secretary of State "appropriately" allowed a longer time period  for early, in-person voting among members of the military and their  families — a line that contradicts suggestions that the suit opposes  early voting for servicemembers.

The lawsuit — filed more than  two weeks ago by the Obama campaign, Democratic National Committee and  Ohio Democratic Party — has become a target of the Romney campaign, with  Spokesman Ryan Williams telling BuzzFeed that Obama's campaign "sued  Ohio to object to the three extra days the state is giving military  voters and their families during Ohio’s in-person early voting period."

Fox  News went further, reporting that the lawsuit aims to "block a new  state law allowing men and women in uniform to vote up until the Monday  right before an election."

In fact, the lawsuit is addressing  what it calls "a confused legislative process" surrounding the passage  of three voting laws in a short period in Ohio. The effect of those laws  is: (1) in-person early voting in Ohio ends for most voters on the  Friday before the election and (2) two conflicting deadlines regarding  the end of in-person early voting for those voting under the auspices of  the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voter Act, which includes  servicemembers and their families.

Ohio Secretary of State Jon  Husted, a Republican, issued an advisory addressing the conflict and  allowing for more voting time for the servicemember voters.

In  the July 17 complaint, the Democratic groups state that "the Secretary  of State appropriately resolved the conflict between the two in-person  early voting deadlines for UOCAVA voters in favor of the more generous  time period," which would appear to blunt any claim that the lawsuit's  aim is to object to the extra time.

The lawsuit, if it succeeds,  would not impact the in-person early voting of servicemembers and their  families, instead asking the court to "restor[e] in-person early voting  on the three days immediately preceding Election Day for all eligible  Ohio voters."

And while Republicans have accused Obama of trying  to deny soldiers the vote in Ohio, the actual legal objections to the  Obama filing are different: Not that Ohio soldiers' votes might not be  counted, but that the Obama move might set a precedent that giving  soldiers special consideration is unconstitutional.

Indeed, group  of fraternal military groups, including the National Guard Association  of the United States, have filed a motion to intervene (embedded below)  in the case to oppose the lawsuit on those grounds — and make no  suggestion that the Democrats' suit would restrict Ohio soldiers' votes.

The  groups' filing states, "Although the relief Plaintiffs seek is an  overall extension of Ohio’s early voting period, the means through which  Plaintiffs are attempting to attain it—a ruling that it is arbitrary  and unconstitutional to grant extra time for early voting solely to  military voters and overseas citizens—is both legally inappropriate and  squarely contrary to the legal interests and constitutional rights of  Intervenors, their members, and the courageous men and women of the U.S.  Armed Forces."

On Friday, the Obama campaign responded,  supporting the groups' intervention in the lawsuit and stating, "Neither  the substance of its Equal Protection claim, nor the relief requested,  challenges the legislature’s authority to make appropriate  accommodation, including early voting during the period in question, for  military voters, their spouses or dependents."

Obama's allies  have accused Romney of smearing Obama with his objections to the suit, a  claim that is undercut to a degree by the objections of relatively  non-partisan military groups. And indeed, while the Romney campaign has  stoked the controversy, it has also, if its statements are read  carefully, been aware of this distinction. Williams told BuzzFeed this  Saturday: "The Obama campaign has publicly declared that it is arbitrary  and unconstitutional to give military voters and their families  extended early voting privileges during the state’s early voting period.  Twenty times in their legal papers they say that Ohio had no good  reason to provide this extra flexibility to military voters and their  families. We disagree with that argument as a matter of principle."

http://buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/obama-campaign-called-ohio-decision-on-early-milit#HTWF2

From  the Cornfield, so apparently what is at issue is the Obama camp is  objecting to taking our military into consideration as special  circumstances. If not all Ohio voters have the same time to vote early  as the military are allowed being overseas and some in combat zones,  then it is unfair and sets a bad precedent.

My  take from the article is that yes, the military and their families  overseas should be allowed to vote early up until the Friday before the  election, but local Ohio voters should have the same right and to not  give the locals the same benefit is not fair.