I would suggest you go read the law again then and more importantly the decision based on the law. It is outlining restrictions.
I’m also not sure why you keep asking what the Ohio law has that the federal law does not as you’ve already been told several times and it’s beem discussed repeatedly in this thread. Ohio’s law initiated the removal procedure based on a failure to vote, which is a violation of that same federal law. The reason the law was upheld in a 5-4 decision is that the conservative justices basically decided the protections in the law don’t exist.
It’s very strange that you keep arguing they are the same thing. Did you wonder why Ohio lost at the district level and had two narrow splits in higher courts if the two were the same? Doesn’t that indicate you aren’t understanding something?
Its very strange you dont comprehend the very reason Breyer, and you, conclude Ohio's law is bad is the returning of notices. The fact is, as Ive stated, AND POSTED, this is written into the federal version:
(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)(i) 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.
In Breyer's dissent, he clearly does NOT address the "or" part of federal law. Alito's comments are spot on (emphasis mine):
Alito pushed back against the Breyer dissent, criticizing its reliance on its “own cobbled-together statistics” and “a feature of human nature of which the dissent has apparently taken judicial notice.” Breyer may not think that a voter’s failure to confirm his eligibility by taking what Alito characterized as “the simple and easy step of mailing back the preaddressed, postage prepaid card” or updating his information online has any significance, Alito wrote, but Congress disagreed. What Breyer’s dissent really boils down to, said Alito, is a “policy disagreement.” But this case is about interpreting federal statutes, Alito emphasized: “We have no authority to second-guess Congress” or to decide whether Ohio’s practice is the best way to keep its voter rolls current. “The only question before us,” Alito concluded, is whether the practice “violates federal law. It does not.”
So the fact youre siding with Breyer, who didnt address the entire issue, is concerning. I dont think of you as stupid, but to clearly ignore the entirety of the federal law is disingenuous. The whole issue of returning a postage paid card via mail is a requirement of both federal, and Ohio's law. Fine if you dont agree with it, but the law is the law.
Its also puzzling how you are claiming this issue is somehow a Republican scheme, when it was Democrats who wrote the damn law.
Now, as Ive previously said, the easiest way to resolve this is for more states to adopt same-day registration. Eight states are already doing so, and would eliminate this issue altogether.