Husted's hypocrisy on injecting partisanship into the Secretary of State's office knows no limits (or public recognition)

Now that the Republicans have very little faith that they'll retain the Apportionment Board or defeat Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, Brunner's confirmed likely Republican opponent, State Senator Jon Husted, wants to scrap not only the Apportionment Board, but essentially gut the entire role of the Secretary of State in Ohio's elections.  Two proposals very similar to the RON (Reform Ohio Now, in case you forgotten) amendments that Ohio voters resoundly rejected in 2005.

Why the change of heart, Johnny?  Well, according to the Columbus Dispatch:

The Kettering Republican said yesterday that he has begun crafting and seeking political support for a November ballot initiative that would remove the secretary of state's oversight of elections and implement a new system for drawing legislative boundaries every 10 years.

Husted, beginning his first Senate term after serving four years as House speaker, confirmed that he is interested in running in 2010 for secretary of state, the office held by Democrat Jennifer Brunner.

"I'm more interested in solving the problems we have in the way we operate state government," Husted said. "It's not about me, and it's not about Jennifer Brunner. It's about creating a new system that's not about hyperpartisanship."

Given Husted and DeWine's Oscar-worthy performance in the 2006 elections, we now know why the Republicans engaged in such hyperpartisanship with their over-the-top attacks against Jennifer Brunner, their overhyping of non-existent voter fraud, and their frivilous lawsuits . . . the Ohio Revised Code made them do it!

This is like "Babyface" Nelson announcing he's going to run for Congress so he can reform the nation's bank laws to stop making banks so tempting to being robbed.

"It's led to lawsuits and a contentious environment that have overshadowed and even undermined conversations about the issues and people we are electing. Manipulation of the process essentially has become a campaign strategy, and this has occurred under both Republican and Democratic control of the office."

Yeah, except when it was a Republican Secretary of State, we were demanding that votes be counted.  When it was a Democratic Secretary of State, you guys were demanding that voters be invalidated.  But thank you for finally and publicly admitting what the entire phoney fraud communication and legal strategies was really all about--they were nothing more than a naked partisan attempt by the Ohio Republican Party to manipulate the process for their partisan benefit.  You'd think such a stunning admission would be a newstory in and of itself.

Newsflash, Johnny, you were just Speaker of the House of Representatives!  Until 2006, you guys controlled the entire agenda.  Why didn't you do this when you had the votes?  Because you were fine with the system until it threw your party out of power.  Plain and simple.  Now the system sucks.

And ODP Chairman Chris Redfern did our cause no favors when we said:

Ohio Democratic Party Chairman Chris Redfern praised Husted for contacting him about his proposals and said he looks forward to discussing them. Redfern said there is cause to question Husted's motive about wanting to change the apportionment process at a time when Democrats control the board, "but I'll take Jon at his word."

Why the f*ck should we just trust Jon Husted?  (How can you trust anyone who doesn't spell John with an "h?"  The "h" stands for honesty.)  Does Redfern honestly believe that if the Republicans regain control over the state legislature and the Secretary of State's office that this "reform" that Husted is hauking will stay around?  No, this there Plan B of how they can, I'm sorry, I'll let Husted say it for me:

"Manipulation of the process essentially has become a campaign strategy."

This proposal is no different than their bogus lawsuits last year.  It's all an attempt to manipulate the process for their own benefit.  Republicans didn't just wake up and realize that, "gee, it's really unfair that although more Ohioans voted for Democratic candidates for Congress than Republicans one, we've had the majority in our Congressional delegation for nearly two decades.  We really shouldn't allow that."

Alll Husted did was take the same steaming pile that there were dumping on legal briefs in courthouses across the nation last year, and scrape it onto a piece of legislation.  Same crap, different packaging.

If Husted really cared about the integrity of the electoral process, he'd let someone who actually lives in his district represent it in the State Senate.  How's that for a response, Mr. Chairman?

[UPDATE:]  Even the Dispatch's headling pisses me off, "Husted wants bipartisan oversight of elections."  Of course, we already have bipartisan oversight of elections from our County Board of Elections where a vast balk of the work is done and overseen.  What the Secretary of State is required to do, thanks to federal legislation passed by the Republicans in Congress, is to create a uniform system.  All a board or committee that replaces the Secretary of State would achieve is change the entity being accused of being political.  Instead of a single, elected Constitutional officer, you'll have people on a board being accused.  Same attack, just different target.