Supreme Court upholds Ohio method of removing names from voter rolls

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
5,037
2,615
136
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.
Legality is a matter of how strict you wish to interpret the written words. I'm not sure how you can determine legality if you don't look at the practical effect and intent of the law. Intepreting laws simply by how they are written and ignoring effect or intent is like interpreting what your wife says simply by what she directly states and not taking into account the tone of voice or facial expressions.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,644
50,879
136
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.

'Motivated reasoning' of course being 'clear logic that Glenn doesn't like', haha.

Ohio identifies individuals for removal from voter registration rolls solely through their failure to vote. That is expressly prohibited by the law.

If identifying individuals for removal because of their failure to vote does not violate that clause then the clause has literally no meaning.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
'Motivated reasoning' of course being 'clear logic that Glenn doesn't like', haha.

Ohio identifies individuals for removal from voter registration rolls solely through their failure to vote. That is expressly prohibited by the law.

If identifying individuals for removal because of their failure to vote does not violate that clause then the clause has literally no meaning.

Expressly prohibited by law until you get to the second part of the same subsection clearly laying out the exception where [the voter] (b) has not voted or appeared to vote in 2 or more consecutive general elections for Federal office.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
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 Voting Rights Act was a law passed by Congress too. And this SCOTUS majority had no problem second guessing it. So they shouldn't pretend like respect for Congress is what drives them and not pure politics.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,644
50,879
136
Expressly prohibited by law until you get to the second part of the same subsection clearly laying out the exception where [the voter] (b) has not voted or appeared to vote in 2 or more consecutive general elections for Federal office.

That is an AND condition, not an OR condition.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,644
50,879
136
Here is the relevant portion of Breyer's dissent. The logic is pretty hard to escape:

To put the matter in the present statutory context: When a State relies upon a registrant’s failure to vote to initiate the Confirmation Procedure, it violates the Failure to-Vote Clause, and a State’s subsequent use of the Confirmation Procedure cannot save the State’s program from that defect. Even if that were not so, a nonreturned confirmation notice adds nothing to the State’s understanding of whether the voter has moved or not. And that, I repeat, is because a nonreturned confirmation notice (as the numbers show) cannot reasonably indicate a change of address. Finally, let us return to §8’s basic mandate and purpose. Ohio’s program must “mak[e] a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters” from its federal rolls on change-of-residence grounds. §20507(a)(4) (emphasis added). Reasonableness under §8(a) is primarily measured in terms of the program’s compliance with “subsections (b), (c), and (d).” §20507(a)(4)(B). That includes the broad prohibition on removing registrants because of their failure to vote. More generally, the statute seeks to “protect the integrity of the electoral process” and “ensure that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained.” §§20501(b)(3), (4). Ohio’s system adds to its nonvoting-based identification system a factor that has no tendency to reveal accurately whether the registered voter has changed residences. Nothing plus one is still one. And, if that “one” consists of a failure to vote, then Ohio’s program also fails to make the requisite “reasonable effort” to comply with subsection (a)’s statutory mandate. It must violate the statute. I
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
That is an AND condition, not an OR condition.

You don't get to magically insert words into laws to meet your political objectives. The actual word used was "EXCEPT" and "AND" is nowhere to be found except in your imagination.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,644
50,879
136
You don't get to magically insert words into laws to meet your political objectives. The actual word used was "EXCEPT" and "AND" is nowhere to be found except in your imagination.

'I don't understand how to read laws' is an interesting legal position to take, haha.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
'I don't understand how to read laws' is an interesting legal position to take, haha.

Yes it is an interesting position for you to take but that's what you did. SCOTUS disagrees with your creative interpretation of plain English. I'd wait for you to admit your error but it's easier and faster just to say I hope Congress will update the law as needed to codify much needed procedures for updating voter rolls so we don't need SCOTUS to attempt divining them out of laws that don't spell them out in the needed level of clarity and detail.
 

sao123

Lifer
May 27, 2002
12,650
203
106
You don't get to magically insert words into laws to meet your political objectives. The actual word used was "EXCEPT" and "AND" is nowhere to be found except in your imagination.

(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.

actually it was, but i agree with the point.

Nonreturning of a survey, and then failing to vote in any of 4 election cycles (primary-general-primary-general) should be enough to remove you from the voting record.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,129
30,523
136
You don't get to magically insert words into laws to meet your political objectives. The actual word used was "EXCEPT" and "AND" is nowhere to be found except in your imagination.
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.
Did you miss this little guy?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,644
50,879
136
Yes it is an interesting position for you to take but that's what you did. SCOTUS disagrees with your creative interpretation of plain English.

lol, SCOTUS does not disagree with me that it is an AND condition. It's literally in the text of the law, you idiot.

Even you have to admit that's so dumb it's funny.

I'd wait for you to admit your error but it's easier and faster just to say I hope Congress will update the law as needed to codify much needed procedures for updating voter rolls so we don't need SCOTUS to attempt divining them out of laws that don't spell them out in the needed level of clarity and detail.

I disagree with SCOTUS's decision for the reasons I've already stated. They've basically wordsmithed the protections against removing registration for failing to vote out of existence. I also hope that Congress updates the law to overrule this silly precedent because we already have enough voter suppression going on in this country.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
27,655
26,755
136
actually it was, but i agree with the point.

Nonreturning of a survey, and then failing to vote in any of 4 election cycles (primary-general-primary-general) should be enough to remove you from the voting record.

Why? What is the benefit?
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,095
37,305
136
Nonreturning of a survey, and then failing to vote in any of 4 election cycles (primary-general-primary-general) should be enough to remove you from the voting record.

Does a right exercised infrequently cease to be a right somehow?

Not sure that's how this is supposed to work.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,644
50,879
136
If you miss two consecutive elections, Federal, State or local? Miss two Presidential elections would be fair, I think. What is Ohio going for, to disenfranchise 3/4 of its voting population?

reece.JPG
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
lol, SCOTUS does not disagree with me that it is an AND condition. It's literally in the text of the law, you idiot.

The "and" in that case is showing the sequence, you (a) don't respond to the notice and then (b) don't vote for four years (the two election cycles described in the law). This is all basically an academic exercise anyway since Section (e) gives remedies for voters removed from the rolls due to non-response to one of the cards. Basically you sign an affirmation and you're done and vote; whether you're "removed from the rolls" is basically an accounting function.
 

Indus

Lifer
May 11, 2002
11,880
8,300
136
It's pretty pathetic that you're cheering on the decline of democracy just because your side 'won.' It's government, not a football game.

He's too busy sucking on Trump's cock to notice what is happening. He hasn't gotten to the happy ending yet.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
So when will election day start being a federal holiday where everyone gets the day off to vote?

Oh, never. Carry on...
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,644
50,879
136
So when will election day start being a federal holiday where everyone gets the day off to vote?

Oh, never. Carry on...

Republicans know their policies are very unpopular so their entire electoral strategy relies on small groups of motivated people.

They will never, ever support any policy that makes it easier for the average person to vote because they don’t want people voting.