Elections board failed to follow letter of law

Elections board failedto follow letter of law
EDITOR:
I am amazed at the Mahoning County Board of Elections' decision to allow a nominating petition to be valid in an Austintown race when a person printed her name on the petition but did not sign it as the law requires.
The law and a 1992 Supreme Court ruling are clear: You must sign your name on a petition to be valid. Not print it.
The court said, "Signatures shall be affixed in ink. Each signer must sign their signature on the petition so the board can check their signature against the registration forms on file with the Board of Elections. The law clearly distinguishes between signature and printing."
Earlier this year, when we circulated petitions to get the Centerpointe project in Austintown on the November ballot, the elections board threw out our 2,000-plus signatures because the falsification clause said misdemeanor and not felony. We accepted that decision because it was the law. If it had said felony, we would be voting on the subject in November.
When does a board get to choose what is or isn't legal when the law spells it out? You must sign your name. You cannot print it. Petitions that we circulated were thrown out because some people turned in printed names. The board said printed names are not legal.
I think it is good to have a lot of people run for office. But let's do it legally. The elections board is there to uphold the law.
I would urge all of the voters in this jurisdiction to write to the board of elections and voice your opinion or call the 7th District Court of Appeals.
The most important issue to us today is to elect people who are honest and will uphold the law no matter who or what is involved. We want leadership who will look after all of us in Austintown.
PAUL CUBELLIS
Austintown
Is it a matter of gender?
EDITOR:
After reading the Sept. 19 Vindicator article concerning Lisa Oles' futile attempt to eliminate all her female competition in the Austintown trustees race, I felt compelled to write. As a woman voter in Austintown, I was appalled at her devious plan to become the only female candidate on the ballot.
I was even more appalled at her attitude, outbursts and demeanor toward other candidates and residents of Austintown at the Board of Elections hearing. I wonder if she believes that all women vote for other women and if she were the only female candidate she would be elected?
Well this one woman who selects trustees based on qualifications and not on gender.
ALICIA KENT
Austintown
Subsidizing religiousschools spells disaster
EDITOR:
The Sept. 15 Vindicator had two syndicated articles extolling the virtues of diverting public tax funds to nonpublic schools, especially religious ones. One was by George W. Will, well known for his right wing anti-public school parochialism. Washington Post writer Marc Fisher was the other.
Fisher advocates the use of charter schools instead of vouchers to subsidize religious schools. Will promotes the use of vouchers.
Any scheme that will divert tax funds to religion or any of its appendages is a blueprint for disaster. The United States has avoided religious civil wars and has had freedom from religion because of the concept of separation of church. Religion of all sorts and conditions in this multicultural nation have flourished because the separation has been observed.
Nowhere in any official document has this nation ever been proclaimed a Christian nation. The bigots who pass on this propaganda do a great disservice to our nation.
President Theodore Roosevelt in 1915 wrote, "I hold that in this country there must be complete severance of church and state; that public moneys shall not be used for the purpose of advancing any particular creed; and therefore that the public schools shall be nonsectarian and no public moneys appropriated for sectarian schools."
Conservative Republicans would have their religious dogma enforced by law. This means there would be no freedom of religion or freedom from religion.
MELVIN S. FRANK
Poland