Supreme Court upholds Ohio method of removing names from voter rolls

[echo4747]

seems pretty fair

https://us.cnn.com/2018/06/11/politics/supreme-court-husted-ohio/index.html

 

[dank69]

Good. Fuck America and its never-ending list of protected rights.

 

[glenn1]

Good. Fuck America and its never-ending list of protected rights.

It's not SCOTUS job to fix or improve problematic laws. I think the Ohio approach is wrongheaded but it's up to Congress to change Motor Voter (or pass a new law) clarifying the processes for cleaning voter rolls.

 

[Sunburn74]

seems pretty fair

https://us.cnn.com/2018/06/11/politics/supreme-court-husted-ohio/index.html

Actually it's a very unusual thing. Basically let's say you vote every year but a year comes up where you dont like the candidates and choose not vote. Ohio would potentially remove you. I can think of no other feature of the bill of rights that is persistently curbed by non-use.

Even more so 4 of the justices felt it violated other pre existing laws already passed by Congress aimed at protecting minorities.

The position of the court is basically the position of a conservative judge that interpets law literally without given any credence or pause to it's effect: a law can be totally immoral, bad policy, biased and grossly unfair but still technically legal if by the literal interpretation of the Constitution. On some level it means that pretty much anything is game as long as the wording of the law is tight enough for it's literal interpretation to mean one thing even if the practical interpretation and effect is something completely else.

 

[senseamp]

"We have no authority to second-guess Congress or to decide whether Ohio's supplemental process is the ideal method for keeping its voting rolls up to date," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the conservative majority.

You mean how you second guessed Congress on the Voting Rights Act?

 

[fskimospy]

It's not SCOTUS job to fix or improve problematic laws. I think the Ohio approach is wrongheaded but it's up to Congress to change Motor Voter (or pass a new law) clarifying the processes for cleaning voter rolls.

Congress already passed a law that prohibits this sort of activity, it's just that the conservative justices on the Supreme Court who otherwise say they are simply bound by the text of the law decided to invent new text for the law and ignore its plain meaning.

The NVRA says you can't have your registration revoked for failing to vote. What does Ohio's law do? Target people who fail to vote for removal.

 

[glenn1]

You mean how you second guessed Congress on the Voting Rights Act?

They're not second guessing it, they're reading what Motor Voter says. The argument being pushed by the minority of SCOTUS is that even though the law says this, Ohio still should have used some other means that would have meant less people being removed from the voter rolls because reasons.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/20507

1. A state shall not remove the name of a registrant from the official list of eligible voters in elections for Federal office on the ground that the registrant has changed residence unless the registrant—

(a) confirms in writing that the registrant has changed residence to a place outside the registrar's jurisdiction in which the registrant is registered; or

(b) has failed to respond to a notice described in paragraph (2); and

(ii) has not voted or appeared to vote (and, if necessary, correct the registrar’s record of the registrant’s address) in an election during the period beginning on the date of the notice and ending on the day after the date of the second general election for Federal office that occurs after the date of the notice.

2. A notice is described in this paragraph if it is a postage prepaid and pre-addressed return card, sent by forwardable mail, on which the registrant may state his or her current address, together with a notice to the following effect:

(a) If the registrant did not change his or her residence, or changed residence but remained in the , the registrant should return the card not later than the time provided for mail registration under subsection (a)(1)(B). If the card is not returned, affirmation or confirmation of the registrant’s address may be required before the registrant is permitted to vote in a Federal election during the period beginning on the date of the notice and ending on the day after the date of the second general election for Federal office that occurs after the date of the notice, and if the registrant does not vote in an election during that period the registrant’s name will be removed from the list of eligible voters.

(b) If the registrant has changed residence to a place outside the registrar's jurisdiction in which the registrant is registered, information concerning how the registrant can continue to be eligible to vote.

(3) A voting registrar shall correct an official list of eligible voters in elections for Federal office in accordance with change of residence information obtained in conformance with this subsection.


And from the CNN news story:

Ohio law allows the state to send address confirmation notices to voters who have not engaged in voter activity for two years. If a voter returns the notice through prepaid mail, or responds online, the information is updated. If the notice is ignored and the voter fails to update a registration over the next four years, the registration is canceled.

Thus Ohio complies with Motor Voter Act bolded section as described above. Case dismissed.

 

[fskimospy]

They're not second guessing it, they're reading what Motor Voter says. The argument being pushed by the minority of SCOTUS is that even though the law says this, Ohio still should have used some other means that would have meant less people being removed from the voter rolls because reasons.

Those 'reasons' being the plain text of federal law, of course, haha.

 

[glenn1]

Those 'reasons' being the plain text of federal law, of course, haha.

I posted the relevant law and bolded the exact section which applies, I'm sure you'll now do the same since you're claiming otherwise.

 

[dainthomas]

Those 'reasons' being the plain text of federal law, of course, haha.

Lol Glenn's not even really trying on this one. Ohio's law directly violates NVRA. It's in black and white for anyone to see. And the only purpose is to secure republican power with minority support.

 

[HomerJS]

So let me see if I understand this. Republicans check the roles. If more Democrats didn't vote past year purge the roles. If more Republicans didn't vote past year leave roles alone.

Do I have that correct??

 

[glenn1]

Lol Glenn's not even really trying on this one. Ohio's law directly violates NVRA. It's in black and white for anyone to see. And the only purpose is to secure republican power with minority support.

I posted the law, please explain how it directly violates it.

 

[MrSquished]

For sake of argument let's say this is totally legal, is it ethical?

Conservatives don't recognize this type of 'nuanced' discussion. They could give two shits if it disenfranchises a bunch of folks, because they, like the ruling, are immoral scum.

I like that. Immoral scum. That defines most right wingers today. Fuck Trump and his immoral scum.

 

[glenn1]

For sake of argument let's say this is totally legal, is it ethical?

Conservatives don't recognize this type of 'nuanced' discussion. They could give two shits if it disenfranchises a bunch of folks, because they, like the ruling, are immoral scum.

I like that. Immoral scum. That defines most right wingers today. Fuck Trump and his immoral scum.

I dunno, is following the law as it was written "ethical"? Seems to me the "ethical" thing would be to change the law if you dislike its provisions.

 

[MrSquished]

I dunno, is following the law as it was written "ethical"? Seems to me the "ethical" thing would be to change the law if you dislike its provisions.

Look at the amount of sexual blue laws that are on the books but ignored. Or look at a major one today, marijuana. The legal thing to do would be to raid and arrest and give max sentences for anything weed related, but the ethical thing to do is quite the opposite. We have choices.

 

[glenn1]

Look at the amount of sexual blue laws that are on the books but ignored. Or look at a major one today, marijuana. The legal thing to do would be to raid and arrest and give max sentences for anything weed related, but the ethical thing to do is quite the opposite. We have choices.

So you're saying we should ignore Motor Voter? Or just the one specific part of it which you find politically inconvenient?

 

[MrSquished]

So you're saying we should ignore Motor Voter? Or just the one specific part of it which you find politically inconvenient?

Ignore the unethical parts of it yes. Just like we are smarter now and ignore a lot of marijuana-related laws in a lot of jurisdictions.

 

[fskimospy]

They're not second guessing it, they're reading what Motor Voter says. The argument being pushed by the minority of SCOTUS is that even though the law says this, Ohio still should have used some other means that would have meant less people being removed from the voter rolls because reasons.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/20507

1. A state shall not remove the name of a registrant from the official list of eligible voters in elections for Federal office on the ground that the registrant has changed residence unless the registrant—

(a) confirms in writing that the registrant has changed residence to a place outside the registrar's jurisdiction in which the registrant is registered; or

(b) has failed to respond to a notice described in paragraph (2); and

(ii) has not voted or appeared to vote (and, if necessary, correct the registrar’s record of the registrant’s address) in an election during the period beginning on the date of the notice and ending on the day after the date of the second general election for Federal office that occurs after the date of the notice.

2. A notice is described in this paragraph if it is a postage prepaid and pre-addressed return card, sent by forwardable mail, on which the registrant may state his or her current address, together with a notice to the following effect:

(a) If the registrant did not change his or her residence, or changed residence but remained in the , the registrant should return the card not later than the time provided for mail registration under subsection (a)(1)(B). If the card is not returned, affirmation or confirmation of the registrant’s address may be required before the registrant is permitted to vote in a Federal election during the period beginning on the date of the notice and ending on the day after the date of the second general election for Federal office that occurs after the date of the notice, and if the registrant does not vote in an election during that period the registrant’s name will be removed from the list of eligible voters.

(b) If the registrant has changed residence to a place outside the registrar's jurisdiction in which the registrant is registered, information concerning how the registrant can continue to be eligible to vote.

(3) A voting registrar shall correct an official list of eligible voters in elections for Federal office in accordance with change of residence information obtained in conformance with this subsection.


And from the CNN news story:

Thus Ohio complies with Motor Voter Act bolded section as described above. Case dismissed.

The grounds Ohio uses to remove voters from the rolls is that they failed to vote. It is in fact the sole method of identifying individuals to potentially remove. This violates federal law as quoted.

 

[dainthomas]

I posted the law, please explain how it directly violates it.

(b) Confirmation of voter registration
Any State program or activity to protect the integrity of the electoral process by ensuring the maintenance of an accurate and current voter registration roll for elections for Federal office—
shall be uniform, nondiscriminatory, and in compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965

Obviously the fact that twice as many blacks as whites have been purged indicates it's discriminatory. At least as implemented.

 

[sao123]

The position of the court is basically the position of a conservative judge that interpets law literally without given any credence or pause to it's effect: a law can be totally immoral, bad policy, biased and grossly unfair but still technically legal if by the literal interpretation of the Constitution.

That is exactly how the court is supposed to function. if the law is bad, its on the legislature to fix, not the court. The court is merely to interpret and decide the legality.

 

[MrSquished]

This law is fucked up. If you just vote in presidential elections you can be purged for missing A SINGLE ONE.

 

[fskimospy]

The logic here is pretty simple, you're removed from voter rolls for not returning a card. What's the only reason you got that card though? Failing to vote. So why were you actually removed from the voter rolls? Failing to vote, of course.

The idea that it can reasonably be inferred that you moved because you didn't respond to some random card you got in the mail is so transparently stupid it defies belief that anyone actually believes it.

 

[HomerJS]

I thought there was another SCOTUS decision you cannot pass laws that unduly disenfranchise a group even if it wasn't the intent. Wasn't this the result of political gerrymandering

 

[Jaskalas]

Ohio law allows the state to send address confirmation notices to voters who have not engaged in voter activity for two years. If a voter returns the notice through prepaid mail, or responds online, the information is updated. If the notice is ignored and the voter fails to update a registration over the next four years, the registration is canceled.

Question. Does voting at any point during that six year period reset the clock, and prevent your removal?

 

[glenn1]

The grounds Ohio uses to remove voters from the rolls is that they failed to vote. It is in fact the sole method of identifying individuals to potentially remove. This violates federal law as quoted.

The logic here is pretty simple, you're removed from voter rolls for not returning a card. What's the only reason you got that card though? Failing to vote. So why were you actually removed from the voter rolls? Failing to vote, of course.

The idea that it can reasonably be inferred that you moved because you didn't respond to some random card you got in the mail is so transparently stupid it defies belief that anyone actually believes it.

The law literally says you can do it. You continue to use motivated reasoning to declare things which are transparently not true.

(c) Confirmation of voter registration - Any Sate program or activity to protect the integrity of the electoral process by ensuring the maintenance of an accurate and current voter registration roll for elections for Federal office-

(1) shall be uniform, nondiscriminatory, and in compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973 et seq.) [now 52 U.S.C. 10301 et seq.]; and

(2) shall not result in the removal of the name of any person from the official list of voters registered to vote in an election for Federal office by reason of the person’s failure to vote, except that nothing in this paragraph may be construed to prohibit a State from using the procedures described in subsections (c) and (d) to remove an individual from the official list of eligible voters if the individual—

(a) has not either notified the applicable registrar (in person or in writing) or responded during the period described in subparagraph (B) to the notice sent by the applicable registrar; and then

(b) has not voted or appeared to vote in 2 or more consecutive general elections for Federal office.