Supreme Court upholds Ohio method of removing names from voter rolls

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
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.



Republicans will fight against this tooth and nail.

No no no. I dont think youre a liar. I think you, along with the dissenting judges, interprate the law different than the majority (and me).

Quotes taken from here

The Supreme Court’s Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute ruling concluded, however, that Ohio’s voter purge system did not violate federal laws. The Court found that Ohio’s system uses a lack of voting as just one piece of evidence, along with the lack of response to the prepaid return card, to trigger a person’s removal from the rolls. Since a person not voting is not the sole basis for removal from the rolls, the Court said, it’s legal under federal law.

“The dissents have a policy disagreement, not just with Ohio, but with Congress,”

The Court also said that the system is, legally, reasonable. “Ohio’s process cannot be unreasonable because it uses the change-of-residence evidence that Congress said it could: the failure to send back a notice coupled with the failure to vote for the requisite period. Ohio’s process is accordingly lawful,” the Court found.

So it goes back to what Alito said: Breyer is interpreting it wrong. *shrug*

As far as the larger voting picture, Im in the middle, as Ive previously explained. Ive never claimed voter fraud is a big deal (its not). With that said, with less strict rules in place, the potential is certainly there. I dont think a person should just be able to show up and say hey there Im John Doe...then vote. On the other hand, what many Republicans want to is far too extreme. There IS a middle ground here. Unfortunately, in today's political climate, moderation is non existent on both sides.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,129
30,523
136
No no no. I dont think youre a liar. I think you, along with the dissenting judges, interprate the law different than the majority (and me).

Quotes taken from here

The Supreme Court’s Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute ruling concluded, however, that Ohio’s voter purge system did not violate federal laws. The Court found that Ohio’s system uses a lack of voting as just one piece of evidence, along with the lack of response to the prepaid return card, to trigger a person’s removal from the rolls. Since a person not voting is not the sole basis for removal from the rolls, the Court said, it’s legal under federal law.

“The dissents have a policy disagreement, not just with Ohio, but with Congress,”

The Court also said that the system is, legally, reasonable. “Ohio’s process cannot be unreasonable because it uses the change-of-residence evidence that Congress said it could: the failure to send back a notice coupled with the failure to vote for the requisite period. Ohio’s process is accordingly lawful,” the Court found.

So it goes back to what Alito said: Breyer is interpreting it wrong. *shrug*

As far as the larger voting picture, Im in the middle, as Ive previously explained. Ive never claimed voter fraud is a big deal (its not). With that said, with less strict rules in place, the potential is certainly there. I dont think a person should just be able to show up and say hey there Im John Doe...then vote. On the other hand, what many Republicans want to is far too extreme. There IS a middle ground here. Unfortunately, in today's political climate, moderation is non existent on both sides.
Good news: the Democrats don't want John Doe to vote either. The registration process is where the validation takes place and we would prefer that registration is triggered automatically in as many circumstances as possible. There, we met you in the middle.
 

Lanyap

Elite Member
Dec 23, 2000
8,185
2,232
136
So it looks like Ohio followed the strict letter of the federal law concerning voter registration cleanup even though that law conflicts with another federal law concerning using not voting as a trigger. Other states are apparently using other, more lenient methods to follow the federal law to keep voter registration rolls accurate like using data bases to determine addresses and status of the voters, mailing multiple notices every few years, etc. These more lenient states have chosen to make it easier for someone who had not voted for a while and missed one verification notice to stay registered.

Am I missing anything?
 
Last edited:

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Good news: the Democrats don't want John Doe to vote either. The registration process is where the validation takes place and we would prefer that registration is triggered automatically in as many circumstances as possible. There, we met you in the middle.

Yes, the REGISTRATION process. We arent talking that.
 

sao123

Lifer
May 27, 2002
12,650
203
106
Breyer’s description is correct and we both know it. If someone misses the notice they will never know.



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.

So then you would prefer that they skip waiting for you to miss a vote, and just send EVERYONE an address verification card every year, of which most people would still fail to return it, and people who even voted in the most recent election would also get targeted for removal?
This seems like a worse solution, because it would result in even MORE removed voters than the process Ohio uses now... AND it would still be strictly legal according to the text of the NVRA?

i dont actually see what you are advocating.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
So then you would prefer that they skip waiting for you to miss a vote, and just send EVERYONE an address verification card every year, of which most people would still fail to return it, and people who even voted in the most recent election would also get targeted for removal?
This seems like a worse solution, because it would result in even MORE removed voters than the process Ohio uses now... AND it would still be strictly legal according to the text of the NVRA?

i dont actually see what you are advocating.

They're advocating for "work backwards from what makes for the largest possible voting rolls, and then write your policy to fit that goal while ignoring laws as needed."
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,117
14,484
146
So then you would prefer that they skip waiting for you to miss a vote, and just send EVERYONE an address verification card every year, of which most people would still fail to return it, and people who even voted in the most recent election would also get targeted for removal?
This seems like a worse solution, because it would result in even MORE removed voters than the process Ohio uses now... AND it would still be strictly legal according to the text of the NVRA?

i dont actually see what you are advocating.

We are advocating for every American citizen to vote.

If an American citizen shows up at the polls their vote gets counted.



They're advocating for "work backwards from what makes for the largest possible voting rolls, and then write your policy to fit that goal while ignoring laws as needed."

The nation is founded on the philosophical ideal that the legitimacy of the government is based on the consent of the masses and the masses express their consent through voting.

Is that something you have a problem with?
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
We are advocating for every American citizen to vote.

If an American citizen shows up at the polls their vote gets counted.





The nation is founded on the philosophical ideal that the legitimacy of the government is based on the consent of the masses and the masses express their consent through voting.

Is that something you have a problem with?

Yes I do have some problems with it. For one, not everyone who is a citizen is eligible to vote. And states have the obligation to maintain accurate voter rolls to make sure that only people who are eligible are voting, and only once, and in the jurisdiction that they’re supposed to.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
If the GOP was so concerned with ANY of the horseshit I've been reading in this thread they'd be pushing to mandate Election Day be a Holiday.

LOL. Republican judge and Reagan appointee Richard Poser so eloquently told the truth when he grew a conscience later in life after years of being a tool for the voter suppression movement. He said that he had gotten it wrong and that among other things photo-ID requirements are now widely regarded as “a means of voter suppression rather than of fraud prevention.” Posner also wrote that he had come to the view that:

“there is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud, and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens.”

Why conservatives can't simply admit they are trying delay the inevitable is beyond me... The live birth babies are already 2 now. You know those babies that in 2016 for the first time outnumbered white babies. They'll be able to vote in 16 years. Not too late to show how much the GOP cares about minorities!!! So much lol...
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
There's a huge conceptual difference between the two parties. True or not, Dems believe that greater participation in the election process gives them more wins. So they want every citizen to be registered & to vote.

The GOP sees it entirely differently. They don't care how they end up with more votes. They have better chances the lower the participation because they have a well indoctrinated cadre who vote like punching in on the job. They're entirely willing to rig the system in a variety of ways to maximize the effectiveness of that.

Paul Weyrich put it bluntly in 1980-

Paul Weyrich - Goo-Goo Syndrome (proper audio/video synchronization) - YouTube
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
If the GOP was so concerned with ANY of the horseshit I've been reading in this thread they'd be pushing to mandate Election Day be a Holiday.

LOL. Republican judge and Reagan appointee Richard Poser so eloquently told the truth when he grew a conscience later in life after years of being a tool for the voter suppression movement. He said that he had gotten it wrong and that among other things photo-ID requirements are now widely regarded as “a means of voter suppression rather than of fraud prevention.” Posner also wrote that he had come to the view that:

“there is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud, and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens.”

Why conservatives can't simply admit they are trying delay the inevitable is beyond me... The live birth babies are already 2 now. You know those babies that in 2016 for the first time outnumbered white babies. They'll be able to vote in 16 years. Not too late to show how much the GOP cares about minorities!!! So much lol...

So then get ahead of the curve and produce a federal Voter ID. Then registration rules, identity verification, procedures for cleaning up databases from dead or moved voters, and checks for fraudulent voting (via absentee, in multiple states, etc) can be uniform and whatever Congress can decide.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
So then get ahead of the curve and produce a federal Voter ID. Then registration rules, identity verification, procedures for cleaning up databases from dead or moved voters, and checks for fraudulent voting (via absentee, in multiple states, etc) can be uniform and whatever Congress can decide.

I'm terribly sorry but you haven't shown those problems worthy of any action at all. Voter Fraud is just another right wing conspiracy theory formulated to reduce participation via onerous demands for "standards" not justified by evidence of fraud. Quite the contrary. Voter fraud has been shown to be several orders of magnitude smaller than disenfranchisement caused by GOP scheming & gaming the system.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,735
28,908
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.
Funny when Republicans take their need to fuck with the vote, judges find their claims bogus. They constantly lose on legal grounds. Unfortunately there are a lot of dummies that think Republicans want more eligible people to vote.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
We are advocating for every American citizen to vote.

If an American citizen shows up at the polls their vote gets counted.





The nation is founded on the philosophical ideal that the legitimacy of the government is based on the consent of the masses and the masses express their consent through voting.

Is that something you have a problem with?

The issue is that America has always low voter turnout. Since 1932 the highest trurnout fopr a presidential election was almost 63% in 1960. The last 30 years has been worse.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,117
14,484
146
The issue is that America has always low voter turnout. Since 1932 the highest trurnout fopr a presidential election was almost 63% in 1960. The last 30 years has been worse.

So would you suggest driving it lower via Voter ID and inaccurate voter roll scrubs to fix that issue or do you feel those measures would exacerbate the issue?
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,117
14,484
146
Yes I do have some problems with it. For one, not everyone who is a citizen is eligible to vote. And states have the obligation to maintain accurate voter rolls to make sure that only people who are eligible are voting, and only once, and in the jurisdiction that they’re supposed to.

Other than those who are under 18 there shouldn’t be any*.

(*I understand some states restrict felons which I’m personally only fine with while incarcerated not after release.)

You do understand that those who are fundamentally eligible are greater than about 95% of the country who are 18 or over? Votes are not a limited resource that needs to be restricted.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Other than those who are under 18 there shouldn’t be any*.

(*I understand some states restrict felons which I’m personally only fine with while incarcerated not after release.)

You do understand that those who are fundamentally eligible are greater than about 95% of the country who are 18 or over? Votes are not a limited resource that needs to be restricted.

Racial disparities in law enforcement & sentencing disenfranchise a lot of black men for the rest of their lives-

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121724
 

sao123

Lifer
May 27, 2002
12,650
203
106
Other than those who are under 18 there shouldn’t be any*.

(*I understand some states restrict felons which I’m personally only fine with while incarcerated not after release.)

You do understand that those who are fundamentally eligible are greater than about 95% of the country who are 18 or over? Votes are not a limited resource that needs to be restricted.

In a sense, voting does need to be restricted... after all, non-citizens and green card holders are not permitted to vote. In a specific quota, what is the number of illegal votes cast, that you are comfortable with? 0? 1? 10? 100? 1000? What is the number that warrants action?
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
In a sense, voting does need to be restricted... after all, non-citizens and green card holders are not permitted to vote. In a specific quota, what is the number of illegal votes cast, that you are comfortable with? 0? 1? 10? 100? 1000? What is the number that warrants action?

Probably lots given this study findings:

https://academic.oup.com/poq/article-abstract/81/4/943/4732177?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Much scholarship and media commentary contends that, with few documented instances of in-person voter fraud, voter identification laws (VID) are strategically enacted to advantage the Republican Party in future elections. Research on elected officials finds support for this contention, but as yet, no direct empirical test exists of whether citizens’ attitudes toward VID are guided by such strategic considerations, particularly while accounting for differential perceptions of fraud prevalence. In this article, I first demonstrate the robustness of partisanship as a significant predictor of public support for strict VID with nationally representative survey data. Then, relying upon survey experiments, I uncover two important asymmetries among partisans. First, Republicans tend to increase support for VID upon learning of even a miniscule amount of in-person voter fraud, but appear relatively insensitive to strategic considerations. Second, Democrats’ support for VID depends significantly upon which party stands to benefit from the laws, but Democrats do not appear sensitive to information about fraud. Overall, the evidence suggests that, in the mass public, Democrats’ views toward VID are more rooted in strategic concerns about electoral outcomes than are Republicans’. In fact, Democrats who were told that VID will reduce Republican turnout were statistically indistinguishable from Republicans in terms of support for VID. Importantly, the results also suggest that efforts to correct misperceptions about the actual prevalence of voter fraud may, paradoxically, further stoke Republicans’ (and, to a lesser extent, Independents’) support for stringent voter identification legislation.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
May have missed this but let's say you are purged from the rolls for whatever and show up and your precinct to vote, are you going to be denied? Or will provisional ballots be allowed?
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,728
2,075
136
In a sense, voting does need to be restricted... after all, non-citizens and green card holders are not permitted to vote. In a specific quota, what is the number of illegal votes cast, that you are comfortable with? 0? 1? 10? 100? 1000? What is the number that warrants action?
He's comfortable with the number of illegal votes that it takes his position to win...... but not one vote more.