Both Sides Do It (Except One)

WaPo has a rather interesting headline to an AP report: “Ohio order blocks activities from both campaigns.”

Reading through the report, which reads like a blog post with constant updates, I find only one campaign’s “activities” being “blocked,” namely that of Donald Trump. So, how do we arrive at the headline? Through very strained reasoning:

Gwin’s decision to grant a temporary restraining order follows a complaint filed by the Ohio Democratic Party against Trump’s campaign and Republican political operative Roger Stone.

Gwin dismissed the Ohio Republican Party as a defendant in the case.

The judge’s written order blocks activities from both campaigns that include unauthorized poll watching, the admonishing or questioning of voters, and taking photos or recording voters inside or near polling places.

In order words, the judge prohibited the Trump campaign from continuing suspicious activities that it was already undertaking. He wrote it in such a way to make clear that the Clinton campaign ought not take up those activities. So, really, it was an admonition to both camps.

FILED UNDER: 2012 Election, Law and the Courts, US Politics, , , , , ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm veteran. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.


  1. Hal_10000 says:

    Huh. So Trump went around saying the election was rigged and now his campaign and supporters are trying to intimidate voters. How … odd.

    Next you’ll be telling me this voter intimidation will get a tiny fraction of the coverage those two blank panthers jackasses did back in 2012.

  2. It is basically getting after one of your kids for something that they did, and then turning to the other saying, “and you had better not do it, either!”

  3. Stormy Dragon says:

    The other weird thing about this judicial order is that intimidating voters at a polling place is already illegal, so either the order is unnecessary or it doesn’t actually mean what it says.

  4. Liberal Capitalist says:
  5. Liberal Capitalist says:
  6. stonetools says:

    @Liberal Capitalist:

    Thank You, Chief Justice John Roberts, you racist enabling A**hole. I can’t wait till the Senate puts in that fifth liberal on the Supreme Court and the Court reverses Shelby vs North Carolina.
    I’m sorry if I seem heated here, but that decision supercharged Republican voter suppression efforts, and is IMO the worst Roberts Court decision. I can’t wait for it to be gone.

  7. Gromitt Gunn says:

    @Liberal Capitalist: I feel like that Texas based article is very misleading. The switch from precinct-based voting locations to county-wide voting centers has been a positive development, not a negative one. Being able to vote anywhere in the county is a big plus.

  8. Hal_10000 says:


    Thanks Congress more. Shelby did not strike down the VRA but required Congress to come up with a new formulation for what areas would require pre-clearance. They have failed to do so. There are currently multiple VRA-related lawsuits working their way up through the courts and numerous law’s — especially North Carolina’s — that will likely be struck down under the VRA. Shelby can not “reversed” until Congress establishes new pre-clearance criteria.