Supreme Court rules in favor of Ohio 'voter purge'

[Superfreak]

The end result will be fewer people voting. Do you dispute that? And not "illegals" or "people voting twice" or anything like that. People who can vote.

Yes, I absolutely dispute that. The purge is based on people who DIDN'T VOTE. So if NONE of them voted, how is it that you get LESS than ZERO voting?

[Superfreak]

Like I said, I haven't even looked - who wants to bet that whoever proposed this measure originally is a Republican?

and who wants to bet the people who sued are liberals who think voting records are going to maintain themselves forever?

[zymurgy]

hey - that's the SCOTUS we all know and love.

the most brilliant legal minds in our country, fighting 5-4 over how the law works

great job everyone! what a great system we live under!!!!

[Cancel 2020.1]

Yes, I absolutely dispute that. The purge is based on people who DIDN'T VOTE. So if NONE of them voted, how is it that you get LESS than ZERO voting?

That entire premise is based on everyone voting in every election.

I hate to say this, but my contention is NOT disputable. It's the reason for this measure. They want fewer people to vote.

[Superfreak]

That entire premise is based on everyone voting in every election.

I hate to say this, but my contention is NOT disputable. It's the reason for this measure. They want fewer people to vote.

Your contention is not only disputable it is quite easily refuted. AS I stated... if you start at ZERO how the fuck do you go DOWN from there?

No, it is not every election. you are simply making shit up to try and make a case. But again, you cannot refute the FACT that you cannot have less than ZERO.

You also continue to dodge the fact that there HAS to be some type of system to clean up the voting records.

You are 100% WRONG. Pretending that your idiocy isn't disputable is fucking hilarious.

[CFM]

70% of people who they sent out to didn't respond.

It's just adding another step. This is transparent to me. An effort to reduce the # of people who vote. Republicans win more when fewer people vote.

Not much over 1/2 actually turn out to vote in Presidential elections and much less in other elections. It doesn't appear as if much effort has to be put forth since that many choose not to vote.

[CFM]

That entire premise is based on everyone voting in every election.

I hate to say this, but my contention is NOT disputable. It's the reason for this measure. They want fewer people to vote.

Oh, the because I said so argument.

[cawacko]

No one said that. But ultimately, this measure's intent is to reduce the # of people who vote.

I wish you guys didn't act like the cat-who-ate-the-canary on this stuff. It's the GOP's history, from motor-voter on. They don't want more people voting. This is not disputable.

Doesn't the federal government already have laws stating how people are removed from voter rolls that was on the Motor Vehicle Act (or whatever it was called) in 1993 when the Dems controlled congress and the WH?

If we never purged voters rolls there would be millions upon millions of dead people still on them. It would make no sense to never update voter rolls. The whole issue of this case was over how Ohio does it but every state cleans up their roles. They'd be remiss not to

[Irish Exit]

I would think that poor people tend to move a bit more than more stable middle class people do. Probably a lot of things middle class people take for granted that are issues for the poor.

And they need to update their address when they move. This could very likely result in skewed local elections if people are voting in the wrong districts/precincts/wards.

[Sailor]

It is like having your license to drive (or any other license). If you do not renew it, you cannot drive. Keep it up to date. Personal responsibility.

[Bigdog]

No one said that. But ultimately, this measure's intent is to reduce the # of people who vote.

I wish you guys didn't act like the cat-who-ate-the-canary on this stuff. It's the GOP's history, from motor-voter on. They don't want more people voting. This is not disputable.

Democrats are just pissed because they OWN THE ILLEGAL VOTE!!! ... for them, those illegal votes are a liberal privilege entitlement.

[Flash]

Doesn't the federal government already have laws stating how people are removed from voter rolls that was on the Motor Vehicle Act (or whatever it was called) in 1993 when the Dems controlled congress and the WH?

If we never purged voters rolls there would be millions upon millions of dead people still on them. It would make no sense to never update voter rolls. The whole issue of this case was over how Ohio does it but every state cleans up their roles. They'd be remiss not to

I haven't read the decision, but I think it was about the interpretation of the law stating how people are removed from the voter rolls.

Some of those people have moved to other states and are now registered in both states.

[christiefan915]

why?
If you are a minority you are incapable of sending back a return envelope confirming your existence?

This is voter suppression.

"... the ruling and the policy itself raise an old question on voting laws: What problem was Ohio trying to solve? It wasn't about resources. Having inactive voters on the rolls isn't an urgent drain on the budget; in fact, there's a case to be made that it take more resources to aggressively pursue and remove those voters the way Ohio does.

It also wasn't about voter fraud. There have been no reported cases of Ohio voters who've moved elsewhere and attempted to vote twice. Even if there were a case or two, that's a tiny fraction of the more than 7,500 Ohio voters who went to the polls in 2016 and were turned away because they had been purged.

But the reason for Ohio's policy can be found in those 7,500 -- as well as the 144,000 people a 2016 Reuters study found were purged in Ohio's three largest counties. In those locales, neighborhoods with more poor, African-Americans were hit the hardest. "Voters have been struck from the rolls in Democratic-leaning neighborhoods at roughly twice the rate as in Republican neighborhoods," the study found.

...if Ohio wants to clean up its voter lists, why start pursuing inactive voters after just two years instead of allowing at least two consecutive missed federal elections (as is done in North Carolina and other states) which better culls people without being aggressively punitive?

The answer, of course, is that Ohio's policy -- like Voter ID and early voting restrictions and other Republican-conceived policies and laws -- is not about the integrity of the vote, but the minimizing of some voters. It's marginalization, sanctioned or not, and it's wrong."

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opi...212956374.html

[Cancel 2018.2]

How is that more likely?

A lot of people don't vote in the span of 4 years. You can say that they forfeit their right to vote by not being as energized as others, but I'd disagree. Many don't vote in midterms. For Presidential elections, some sit it out if they think the state is already going one way or the other, or if they just can't get passionate about a candidate.

I think this measure is completely ridiculous. Studies have already shown that actual voter fraud is miniscule. I have zero doubt that its originators just want to reduce the # of people voting.

Like I said:

If it is only one letter, this is bogus. But if you can't be bothered to respond to more than one letter.... Well....

But they are also reducing republican voters, right?

[Cancel 2018.2]

there is also online verification.

How many notices do you get?