On August 4th, Mitt Romney posted the following statement on his Facebook page:

President Obama’s lawsuit claiming it is unconstitutional for Ohio to allow servicemen and women extended early voting privileges during the state’s early voting period is an outrage. The brave men and women of our military make tremendous sacrifices to protect and defend our freedoms, and we should do everything we can to protect their fundamental right to vote. I stand with the fifteen military groups that are defending the rights of military voters, and if I’m entrusted to be the commander-in-chief, I’ll work to protect the voting rights of our military, not undermine them [http://www.facebook.com/mittromney/posts/10150981967501121].

Sounds pretty bad. Perhaps as bad as saying that a raped woman can stop herself from getting pregnant. Well, not quite that bad. Only thing is, this claim by Romney is entirely misleading and false — the lawsuit does not seek to change the early voting period of military voters at all. Romney is misleading people by giving the impression that the lawsuit is attacking military voter’s rights. This couldn’t be farther from the truth. What the lawsuit does seek to do is restore the three days prior to election day that was taken away from nonmilitary Ohioan voters. Here is the opening statement of the lawsuit.

Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to restore in-person early voting for all Ohioans during the three days prior to Election Day –- a right exercised by an estimated 93,000 Ohioans in the last presidential election. Ohio election law, as currently enacted by the State of Ohio and administered by Defendant Ohio Secretary of State, arbitrarily eliminates early voting during the three days prior to Election Day for most Ohio voters, a right previously available to all Ohio voters [http://www.scribd.com/doc/102033888/OFA-Complaint-as-Filed].

It is very clearly stated that the lawsuit changes nothing for military voters and only affects nonmilitary voters by restoring the voting rights for all Ohioans for the three days prior to the election. To Romney somehow it is outrageous to restore the voting rights for all Ohioans and that this is somehow attacking military voters rights.

I find it outrageous for Mitt Romney to perpetuate this misinformation and outright lie.

Wait. Maybe Romney is ignorant to what is really in the lawsuit. I find that very hard to believe. Anyone with very little search ability can easily find the truth of the lawsuit on the Internet. One can even read the full text of the lawsuit, so it is very unlike he doesn’t

A day later this memo from Katie Biber, General Counsel, was posted on Romney’s website [http://m.mittromney.com/news/press/2012/08/memorandum-obama-america-ohio-lawsuit].

Here is a statement from that memo that clearly shows that the Romney campaign knew what the lawsuit was and intentionally misrepresented the lawsuit to make it appear that the suit was attempting to remove something from the military voters of Ohio.

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.

Again there is no mention, by the Romney campaign, of the Ohioans, who had lost the ability to vote on the three days prior to the election, and it was this inequality that was enacted, which the lawsuit seeks to rectify.

Instead it is implied that the lawsuit seeks to take away three days of voting as a special provision for military voters. It would be like saying that I was giving an employee extra pay by cutting the salary of everyone else in the company. Then when there are protests and the employees want to restore their salaries, the one employee cries that they are trying to cut his salary. No one in their right mind would say that this employee was giving a true representation of the facts, but this is exactly what the Romney campaign would want us to believe.

Romney states that he stands with military groups to protect their voting rights. This is ironic because there are many in the military that see through Romney’s charade and what the Republican Party is really trying to do by slandering this lawsuit.

But two constitutional-law professors from different battleground states – Ohio and Florida – strongly disagree with the Romney campaign, and some other veterans groups say that Romney is supporting denial of voting access to hundreds of thousands of Ohio military veterans by opposing Obama’s lawsuit [http://votevets.org/news/?id=0561].

In reality, it is the Republican Party that wants to restrict the voting in Ohio, by making the in-person early voting cutoff date earlier than it is for military voters. It was in 2011 that a GOP-controlled legislature changed the early voter deadline to end on the Friday before Election Day for all voters except military voters. Why would Republicans want to do this? It’s very simple — it all comes down to trying to get the advantage.

In 2008, early voting was very popular and was heavily used by Obama voters. In 2008, 93,000 Ohioan voters voted during that three-day period. This was looked at as helping Obama win this battleground state, which went Republican in the previous two elections. It is also well-known that the military largely votes Republican. Therefore, by restricting the in-person early voting period for nonmilitary voters, Republicans are trying to eliminate a percentage of Democrat votes in the in-person early voting period, and keeping in place a longer period for predominantly Republican military voters.

Since the battle really is about whether to restrict Ohioans voter rights — a percentage of which would be Democrats — Obama’s reasons for filing the lawsuit may not be entirely benevolent, but that doesn’t change whether the lawsuit is the right thing to do, which is restoring the three days that voters used to have. This means that what Romney and Republicans, who oppose this lawsuit, are attacking is the voter rights of the majority of Ohioan voters, many of which are, incidentally, military veterans.

I find it amazing that people, who know that the lawsuit seeks only to restore the three days of in-person early voting for all Ohioans, they still insist that this lawsuit is an attack on military voters. The suit does say that it is unfair for one group to have an earlier ending date for early voting than another group. I agree with this and I think that most Americans would too. Some have twisted this into being an issue of Obama not thinking military voters should have extra early voter days, implying that Obama hates the military. I don’t understand this way of thinking. It is absurd and illogical. So we should restrict other voter’s rights, because the military should have extra days regardless, and if we done agree with that, then we hate the military and are attacking their rights. How absurd. In what world does this make sense?

This lawsuit does not change in the slightest bit the voting period for military voters, hence it cannot be an attack on the rights of military voters. Shortening the period for all other voters is an attack on their right to vote on those three days. Those who oppose the lawsuit should give a good reason for why all Ohioans should not be allowed to vote on those three days. To oppose the lawsuit that is what one must do, tell those voters why they shouldn’t be allowed to vote on those three days. Tell them why it is OK for the Republican Party to attack the rights of the majority of Ohioan voters. If your only reason is that military voters should have a longer period for early voting, I’m sorry that is not a reason to restrict the voting period for other voters.

Somehow the Republican Party has changed what it means to be equal under the law. Republican thinking is that some people are more equal under the law and others should not be afforded the same rights they have. This is one instance of this and same-sex marriage is another instance of this philosophy that is very dangerous to the fabric of our society and American values.

Romney’s remarks are, at best, very misleading to call this lawsuit an attack on military voter’s rights, but intentionally misleading people is in reality lying.

More Reading: FactCheck.org, Text of the Lawsuit