Supreme Court upholds Ohio method of removing names from voter rolls

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

sao123

Lifer
May 27, 2002
12,650
203
106
You don’t understand the law we are talking about. Not voting a single time is sufficient to be targeted for removal, not voting a few additional times allows that removal to be enacted.

No. Not voting allows you to be placed on a watch list. Not targeted for removal.
The watch list is then sent a verification card. If the card is returned, you are removed until the next time you do not vote.

If the card is not returned, an additional 2 full election cycles must pass before you are removed.

Nowhere in ANY of this does it say you can be targeted for removal for missing 1 vote.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,644
50,879
136
Your quote: The federal law does not put in place any procedures, it outlines limitations on them.

Thats false. The federal law specifically states after 2 years a confirmation will be sent out, and if the respondent hasnt either gone online or mailed back (postage paid) the confirmation, the voter will be removed from voter rolls.

Looks like a procedure to me.

Again. What part of the Ohio law does the federal law not have that is extreme?

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?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,644
50,879
136
You mean this?

The principal dissent attaches a misleading label to this return card, calling it a “‘last chance’ notice.” Post, at 6–7, 9–12 (opinion of BREYER, J.). It is actually no such thing. Sending back the notice does not represent a voter’s “last chance” to avoid having his or her name stricken from the rolls. Instead, such a voter has many more chances over a period of four years to avoid that result. All that the voter must do is vote in any election during that time.

Yeah OK.

Breyer’s description is correct and we both know it. If someone misses the notice they will never know.

I love Sotomayors dissent:

But writing alone, Sotomayor focused on the effect of Ohio's system.
She started with the fact that the 1993 law was enacted "against the backdrop of substantial efforts by States to disenfranchise low-income and minority voters, including programs that purged eligible voters from registration lists because they failed to vote in prior elections."

Again. Who wrote the federal bill?

I don’t think you understand what you’re quoting. The motor voter law was written, by Democrats, to prevent discriminatory laws like Ohio’s from going into effect. Sotomayor is saying that the law was specifically made to stop voter suppression like this.

In fact, that’s the next avenue to have this law struck down. It’s going back to the courts now for disparate impact.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
27,655
26,755
136
No. Not voting allows you to be placed on a watch list. Not targeted for removal.
The watch list is then sent a verification card. If the card is returned, you are removed until the next time you do not vote.

If the card is not returned, an additional 2 full election cycles must pass before you are removed.

Nowhere in ANY of this does it say you can be targeted for removal for missing 1 vote.

Lordy that is some spinning to still say that in reality the process for being removed starts with not voting in a single election.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
27,655
26,755
136
It's the only way to fix the system and not be stuck in a feedback loop for fucking ever like Citizens United.

Have you not paid attention to what already happens in states where this is a thing? It is how you get Roy Moore as chief justice.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,644
50,879
136
Also blackangst, if you read that NYT article are you still going to claim that voter suppression is not a goal of the Republican Party?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,697
8,096
136
This decision allows states to purge voting rolls because someone hasn't voted in a previous election(s), and because a piece of mail wasn't opened and sent back.

If states weren't attempting to make it harder for people to vote, they'd just put them on a list so that when they show up to vote, they are asked to update their voter registration. And all it requires is an asterisk next to the voters' names.

But, again, this decision, makes it easier to make it harder for people to vote. Because those governments are corrupt.

Spin it any way you want.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
27,655
26,755
136
Ohio chose the most expensive way to verify voters were still at the same address instead of utilizing data already in the state's possession.

I wonder what possibly could have been the motivation for that choice from a party that is constantly claiming to be the party of fiscal responsibility!
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,008
8,041
136
You'd have to miss 3 elections in a row to be removed from the voting registration. And then, all you gotta do is re-apply?
Sounds a bit mundane.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
23,086
21,204
136
You'd have to miss 3 elections in a row to be removed from the voting registration. And then, all you gotta do is re-apply?
Sounds a bit mundane.

A lot of people just vote in presidential elections. Miss one and you are removed if you don't see who knows what kind of notice via regular mail, if you get it. When you find out it's likely going to be at the polls on election day.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,008
8,041
136
When you find out it's likely going to be at the polls on election day.

That does sound like a problem. Perhaps it should simply be tied to your DMV / photo ID records. If you have a current residence then you should automatically be "registered" to vote from there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,697
8,096
136
You'd have to miss 3 elections in a row to be removed from the voting registration. And then, all you gotta do is re-apply?
Sounds a bit mundane.
Why is it so, so important to make it hard for people to vote, though?

As in, who, exactly, benefits from making it harder for people to vote?

And, why does it benefit those people, to make it harder to vote?

If I register to vote, then that county has received the appropriate information proving that I can vote. Why does the state need to push and push to make it possibly impossible for me to vote? Other than, of course, to make my vote not count?

This is simple. Most western countries don't pass laws and go to court to make it harder for people to vote.

So, why do governments in this country spend so much time, power, and money making it harder for people to vote?
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,635
3,509
136
That does sound like a problem. Perhaps it should simply be tied to your DMV / photo ID records. If you have a current residence then you should automatically be "registered" to vote from there.

That would mean more poor and minorities would end up registered, which is the opposite of what they want.
 

sao123

Lifer
May 27, 2002
12,650
203
106
That would mean more poor and minorities would end up registered, which is the opposite of what they want.

Newsflash! Republicans have been pushing for this for years... It's called voterid and would pass it in a heartbeat.

Your Comrad's on the left disagree with your assertion that it register more voters... they call it voter suppression perhaps you can show them the light.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
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.
 
Last edited:

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
What circumstances should dictate that a person is removed from a specific voter roll?

I personally think this provision of the NVRA should be removed. There ARE other parts of the law that are good but this provision is strange. Ive read Democrats reasons for writing the law but not specifically this provision.

But, as it is, its the law we have And with the latest ruling by SCOTUS, its not likely to be addressed anytime soon.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
I personally think this provision of the NVRA should be removed. There ARE other parts of the law that are good but this provision is strange. Ive read Democrats reasons for writing the law but not specifically this provision.

But, as it is, its the law we have And with the latest ruling by SCOTUS, its not likely to be addressed anytime soon.

That's fine you want the provision removed from Motor Voter but it doesn't really answer the question you quoted. We all know the progressive position is basically "the more votes the merrier" with considerations like proving the identity of the voter or having them be on the voting rolls at all is barely a consideration if not disregarded altogether. If they want to have their states not bothering to care if a dead person, or someone living in another state is on the voting rolls (or votes for that matter) that's one thing, but other states DO want to maintain the quality of their voting rolls. Thus we need some common standard (ideally through codified federal law) that lays out the requirements, constraints, and safe harbor provisions for doing so. Especially when a state is following the existing law as written as the case here puts them into hysterics, a law THEY WROTE.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sao123

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,644
50,879
136
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):

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 Phio'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.

Haha so I'm not stupid, instead I'm a liar. That's depressingly common on this board - 'you disagree with me therefore you must be lying'. I don't think I've questioned your motives so I don't see why you would do that for me. As to why you keep bringing up that Democrats wrote the law we are talking about Ohio's implementation, which is Republican written. There's no point in ever mentioning that Democrats wrote the federal law again as it is not relevant to anyone's argument here.

The issue that Breyer raises that the majority opinion is unable to answer is that federal law clearly prohibits removing registration for a failure to vote. Considering that is literally the only reason someone is targeted for potential removal that either 1) violates federal law or 2) means that protection in federal law is effectively meaningless.

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.

Republicans will fight against this tooth and nail.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,226
10,878
136
Newsflash! Republicans have been pushing for this for years... It's called voterid and would pass it in a heartbeat.

Your Comrad's on the left disagree with your assertion that it register more voters... they call it voter suppression perhaps you can show them the light.
I have to refresh old memories and people who have not been exposed to the early concepts of Republican Conervatism. Here is my nugget that I put out to refresh peoples minds as to why conservatives don't believe in majority rule. Goo Goo Good Government:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GBAsFwPglw

So many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome: good government. They want everybody to vote. I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.
  • Remarks to the Religious Roundtable (August 1980), quoted in The Hidden Election (1981) by Thomas Ferguson and Joel Rogers
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dank69