Supreme Court upholds Ohio voter registration purge policy

[shockz]

58 minutes ago, ccoltmanm said:

I love that he just searched it in Google and added "racist" at the end of it -- then went on to say look at all those sources!

 

Talk about data picking!

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-980_f2q3.pdf - Feel free to read the dissenting opinion. Spoon fed just for you. Starts at page 54 if you need more hand holding.

[DocM]

1 hour ago, shockz said:

The fact is, they were singled out by the state based on their residence and county. 

>

 

It's far more likely that more de-registrations occur in those counties simply because they have a larger population (duh.) That's the case here in Michigan, and we need to re-register every time we move. It's been "use it lose it" for many years, under both parties. Common sense.

 

And in MI (and most other states) it's easy to register or check your status; go to the town hall, any Secretary of State (SoS) office (where you get state IDs, driver's licenses, etc.) OR you can often check your status etc. at the SoS website. Those eligible for one can visit the SoS website using their Obama-Phone ?

 

 

[shockz]

8 minutes ago, DocM said:

 

It's far more likely that more de-registrations occur in those counties simply because they have a larger population (duh.) That's the case here in Michigan, and we need to re-register every time we move. It's been "use it lose it" for many years, under both parties. Common sense.

 

And in MI (and most other states) it's easy to register or check your status; go to the town hall, any Secretary of State (SoS) office (where you get state IDs, driver's licenses, etc.) OR you can often check your status etc. at the SoS website.

No, there are plenty of populated red counties near those major city centers... Geauga County outside Cleveland, Delaware County outside Columbus. And outside Dayton in Montgomery county, there were no major complaints that required massive amounts provisional ballots be cast in those counties. 

 

And yes, moving requires registration obviously. Yet the people that were removed from these rolls have not moved. 

[shockz]

10 minutes ago, DocM said:

Those eligible for one can visit the SoS website using their Obama-Phone ?

 

Was that supposed to be a dig? So typical of you.

[wakjak]

26 minutes ago, DocM said:

Those eligible for one can visit the SoS website using their Obama-Phone

Oi. Still on about a thing that never ever existed. Still can't keep Obama out of your posts, almost 2 years later huh? Go figure.

 

Voting rights should not be possible to be purged. Clearly there needs to be something done to fix this idiotic system that purges people from their right to vote.

 

If it were as simple as death/moving, then clearly the states need a better way to obtain that information. How about when someone dies, they're death information or certificate is sent and logged in to at a state government facility? Add a simple program on a PC somewhere and have funeral homes enter them into a government database, then you don't have the issue. Same with moving.

[techbeck]

26 minutes ago, DocM said:

And in MI (and most other states) it's easy to register or check your status; go to the town hall, any Secretary of State (SoS) office (where you get state IDs, driver's licenses, etc.) OR you can often check your status etc. at the SoS website. Those eligible for one can visit the SoS website using their Obama-Phone ?

 

 

Yea, not like it is hard to register again.  If it was 30yrs ago, then I can see how this can be a pain for some having to go someplace to get/complete the registration.

[wakjak]

2 minutes ago, techbeck said:

Yea, not like it is hard to register again.

So you've got all the information on someones ability to get to a voter registration station? You know the geographical locations of millions of minorities who may or may not have the ability to get to said areas to re-register? 

Seems like a lot of presumptions from someone who isn't at a disadvantage in life.

[techbeck]

24 minutes ago, wakjak said:

So you've got all the information on someones ability to get to a voter registration station? You know the geographical locations of millions of minorities who may or may not have the ability to get to said areas to re-register? 

Seems like a lot of presumptions from someone who isn't at a disadvantage in life.

Unless you are and older person and/or do not like tech/want to use it,  then you most likely have access to a smartphone or a computer or know someone who does.  And minorities have access to the same resources and tech like everyone else./or

 

So big deal that people may have to go and re-register every now and then to vote.  I am sure the sky will not fall and the world will come to an end.  Some people just need more to complain about I guess.  Personally, would not bother me but people will complain about anything these days.  World is becoming full for winers and complainers which does nothing to solve anything.

 

Edit:

So, since I am home and have more time to full read the OP....

 

After 2yrs of non voting, people will get a confirmation card in the mail.  If they do not respond to the card, they get purged.   This is also updating a law/rule put in place in 1993 to make it easier for people to register/vote.  With the age of computers and tech, this is not nearly as much as a concern as it once was.  There are also 5 other states that purge voters as well.   So.....whatever.

Edited June 11, 2018 by techbeck

[DocM]

1 hour ago, wakjak said:

So you've got all the information on someones ability to get to a voter registration station? 

 

You can register by mail or online, and for those who are handicapped or infirm many municipalities and aid organizations will send a social worker.

 

Once registered you can vote normally or reguest an absentee ballot and vote early by mail.

 

If not registered you can go to the polls and use a "provisional ballot," which is  guaranteed under HAVA (Help America Vote Actof 2002). A provisional ballot is used when,

 

the voter refuses to show a photo ID (where required), or

 

the voter's name does not appear on the precincts voter list, or

 

the voter's registration contains incorrect or outdated information (wrong address, spelling, etc.)

 

The provisional ballot being counted depends on verification of the voter's eligibility; showing a birth certificate or certified copy, state ID, driver's license, a bill with their name & current address etc.

 

These are not unreasonable standards or insurmountable barriers.

[FloatingFatMan]

2 hours ago, shockz said:

Well considering that the question proposed by floating was why this would be racist, what else should I have put? I can't hold someones hand when searching. Data picking? Nonsense. Would you have liked me to copy and paste the Google links into here so I could spoon feed them to you? 

Virtually none of those results accused the government of racism for doing this either.  You're just being lazy and using racism as an excuse because you can't be bothered to get off your rear every once in a while and fill out a form. Tough. 

[DocM]

1 hour ago, shockz said:

Was that supposed to be a dig? So typical of you.

A suggestion, and here's one more: go to any public library. Most all now have free computers to use - just get a free library card and you're in business. Show your card, sign the log and wait your turn.

[shockz]

37 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

Virtually none of those results accused the government of racism for doing this either.  You're just being lazy and using racism as an excuse because you can't be bothered to get off your rear every once in a while and fill out a form. Tough. 

I provided the actual dissent for you to read on, which basically states everything I've said with ample citations there's not much else I can do aside from trying to help pull your head out of the sand. I'm not the one being lazy here. Sorry, not sorry j went above and beyond at providing numerous links and the litteral 58 page doc with both opinons. What more do you possibly need?

28 minutes ago, DocM said:

A suggestion, and here's one more: go to any public library. Most all now have free computers to use - just get a free library card and you're in business. Show your card, sign the log and wait your turn.

I've yet to see any actual legit reason to purge voters from databases. Outside of running a query on dead people, there's abosutely zero reason to purge voters records 

 

This isn't the first time husted has had to go to court either, several other antics through the years have been struck down as completely partisan

 

Edited June 11, 2018 by shockz

[FloatingFatMan]

7 hours ago, shockz said:

I provided the actual dissent for you to read on, which basically states everything I've said with ample citations there's not much else I can do aside from trying to help pull your head out of the sand. I'm not the one being lazy here. Sorry, not sorry j went above and beyond at providing numerous links and the litteral 58 page doc with both opinons. What more do you possibly need?

You posted that AFTER the post I responded to, and after glancing through that document, I still don't see anything other than assumptions and accusations without any real proof.  You're making the assumption that racism is the cause and dismissing far simpler options such as population density or even just local county rules.

 

Quote

I've yet to see any actual legit reason to purge voters from databases. Outside of running a query on dead people, there's abosutely zero reason to purge voters records 

 

This isn't the first time husted has had to go to court either, several other antics through the years have been struck down as completely partisan

 

A legit reason HAS been posted, by several people including me; Voter fraud prevention.  Removing inactive entries from the database means less chance that someone could impersonate a citizen who has either passed away or moved away, all for the sake of a teeny tiny bit of inconvenience.  Besides which, if you're an active voter then this will never affect you, and if you're not, then why even care?  It's not like they remove you after missing one vote.

[DocM]

27 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

You posted that AFTER the post I responded to, and after glancing through that document, I still don't see anything other than assumptions and accusations without any real proof.  You're making the assumption that racism is the cause and dismissing far simpler options such as population density or even just local county rules.

 

A legit reason HAS been posted, by several people including me; Voter fraud prevention.  Removing inactive entries from the database means less chance that someone could impersonate a citizen who has either passed away or moved away, all for the sake of a teeny tiny bit of inconvenience.  Besides which, if you're an active voter then this will never affect you, and if you're not, then why even care?  It's not like they remove you after missing one vote.

 

Some people like to make things like Voter ID etc. partisan, a Republican issue, but the fact is even left-leaning polls like Gallup show rank-and-file Democrats also support them by 55-65%. One of those things where it's mostly the Dems left fringe that's  bitching about it, and the party leadership is pandering to them,

[FloatingFatMan]

38 minutes ago, DocM said:

 

Some people like to make things like Voter ID etc. partisan, a Republican issue, but the fact is even left-leaning polls like Gallup show rank-and-file Democrats also support them by 55-65%. One of those things where it's mostly the Dems left fringe that's  bitching about it, and the party leadership is pandering to them,

It's absolutely ridiculous IMO.  Providing ID when voting should be a pretty basic requirement. You want to vote? Sure, prove you are who you say you are.

 

It's no wonder you have so many accusations of voter fraud over there, when any attempt at controlling it and making it more secure for everyone is met with resistance at every step...

 

[shockz]

7 hours ago, DocM said:

 

Some people like to make things like Voter ID etc. partisan, a Republican issue, but the fact is even left-leaning polls like Gallup show rank-and-file Democrats also support them by 55-65%. One of those things where it's mostly the Dems left fringe that's  bitching about it, and the party leadership is pandering to them,

Of course democrats support ensuring voting is protected, but it's your team that tries to pull antics like this that limit voters, especially in blue county swing states in the name of fraud protections.

 

This ruling is already being used as a template in other swing states.

 

Voter fraud doesn't exist, at least not on the scope that you make it out to be. The irony of course is that members of Team Red are the ones usually caught, "testing the system". This was the standard left vs right ruling, right down the middle, and only only need to read both opinions to see that, anyone who says that the dissenting opinion doesn't talk about minority voter suppression needs their eyes checked.

[Dick Montage]

20 hours ago, shockz said:

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=ohio+voter+purge+racist&oq=ohio+voter+purge+racist&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l5.2384j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 plenty of reading materials.

 

 

Undeniable proof that Big Bird from Sesame Street is racist:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=sesame+street+big+bird+racist&oq=sesame+street+big+bird+racist&aqs=chrome..69i57.5743j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

If you're a freaking idiot

[shockz]

28 minutes ago, NJL said:

Undeniable proof that Big Bird from Sesame Street is racist:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=sesame+street+big+bird+racist&oq=sesame+street+big+bird+racist&aqs=chrome..69i57.5743j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

 

  Hide contents

If you're a freaking idiot

 

Except of course the search provided by me provided actual relevant articles per the discussion we were having, and if one would of bothered to read a few of them (especially the ones that were only an hour old), you'd get the information requested. One of the corner pieces of this entire decision discussed minority suppression. I 

 

You're an adult, I'm not about to spoonfeed someone, go and reach your own conclusions. I provided what was requested, with links relevant to what he asked. I just didn't hold their hand and paste them into this thread.

 

Also, if you cared to actually follow the flow of the thread, I posted the actual opinion from the supreme court that basically reiterated what I stated, with additional citations.

 

For maximum hand holding, to accommodate pure laziness, here are some links:

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/sonia-sotomayors-husted-dissent-points-the-way-forward-on-racist-voter-purge-laws.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/11/supreme-court-upholds-ohio-voter-registration-purge-policy.html

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/11/17448742/ohio-voter-purge-supreme-court-ruling

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/us-supreme-court-ohio-voter-purge-law-state-voting-rolls-registration-larry-harmon-a8394076.html

 

Literally one of the bullet points in the CNBC article if you are not intelligent enough to read a full article.

Not much difference either posting them here, or seeing them there, but again, relevant to the discussion FFM and I had. He asked, there are the few (of many) sources.

 

Or how about this:

 

Quote

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, dissenting. I join the principal dissent in full because I agree that the statutory text plainly supports respondents’ interpretation. I write separately to emphasize how that reading is bolstered by the essential purposes stated explicitly in the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) to increase the registration and enhance the participation of eligible voters in federal elections. 52 U. S. C. §§20501(b)(1)–(2). Congress enacted the NVRA 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. The Court errs in ignoring this history and distorting the statutory text to arrive at a conclusion that not only is contrary to the plain language of the NVRA but also contradicts the essential purposes of the statute, ultimately sanctioning the very purging that Congress expressly sought to protect against.

 

Again: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-980_f2q3.pdf

 

Quote

Concerted state efforts to prevent minorities from voting and to undermine the efficacy of their votes are an unfortunate feature of our country’s history. See Schuette v. BAMN, 572 U. S. 291, 337–338 (2014) (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting). As the principal dissent explains, “n the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a number of 2 HUSTED v. A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting ‘[r]estrictive registration laws and administrative procedures’ came to use across the United States.” Ante, at 1–2 (opinion of BREYER, J.). States enforced “poll tax[es], literacy tests, residency requirements, selective purges, . . . and annual registration requirements,” which were developed “to keep certain groups of citizens from voting.” H. R. Rep. No. 103–9, p. 2 (1993). Particularly relevant here, some States erected procedures requiring voters to renew registrations “whenever [they] moved or failed to vote in an election,” which “sharply depressed turnout, particularly among blacks and immigrants.” A. Keyssar, The Right To Vote 124 (2009). Even after the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, many obstacles remained. See ante, at 2 (opinion of BREYER, J.).

Or how about this:

 

Quote

Congress was well aware of the “long history of such list cleaning mechanisms which have been used to violate the basic rights of citizens” when it enacted the NVRA. S. Rep. No. 103–6, p. 18 (1993). Congress thus made clear in the statutory findings that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote is a fundamental right,” that “it is the duty of the Federal, State, and local governments to promote the exercise of that right,” and that “discriminatory and unfair registration laws and procedures can have a direct and damaging effect on voter participation . . . and disproportionately harm voter participation by various groups, including racial minorities.” 52 U. S. C. §20501(a). In light of those findings, Congress enacted the NVRA with the express purposes of “increas[ing] the number of eligible citizens who register to vote” and “enhanc[ing] the participation of eligible citizens as voters.” §§20501(b)(1)– (2). These stated purposes serve at least in part to counteract the history of voter suppression, as evidenced by §20507(b)(2), which forbids “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.” Ibid.

 

I could go on copying literally the next paragraphs of the passage, but you get the point. Or probably don't.

 

Hint: All this was in the first few links of that google search.

Edited June 12, 2018 by shockz

[Dick Montage]

Relevant being a somewhat relative term when you use it.

 

Let's assume for a moment that you know how to construct an argument.  You'd then know that the burden of providing the actual source is yours.  But instead you provide a spurious link to google search results and then berate those who push for an actual source.

 

Huge assumption it seems I just made...

[shockz]

31 minutes ago, NJL said:

Relevant being a somewhat relative term when you use it.

 

Let's assume for a moment that you know how to construct an argument.  You'd then know that the burden of providing the actual source is yours.  But instead you provide a spurious link to google search results and then berate those who push for an actual source.

 

Huge assumption it seems I just made...

No, relevant to the fact that he asked for a source to backup my claims of racism, and I provided a google search that literally had articles posted within the hour (as again indicated above) discussing the racist attributes that eventually formed several opinions out of the supreme court. He could of taken his pick. I did provide the actual source, in fact multiple sources. I just didn't copy and paste them here. That's not a problem.

 

The link would be spurious if it had sources that were extremely old and not at all relevant to the literal current events happening within that hour.

 

Try again.

 

And also, I wasn't the one calling someone having a garbage argument or lazy. I certainly returned in kind though.  Maybe you need to stop cherry picking? 

Edited June 12, 2018 by shockz

[DConnell Member]

21 hours ago, shockz said:

Why should you have to register to vote more than once? If you move sure, otherwise this is just another way to suppress voter turn out. Just for fun as well... I've never had to re-register, and for awhile only voted during pres elections, someone I know (who happens to be a minority and lives in a district where his minority is actually the majority) has already had to re-register already and his polling place frequently has issues with the same touch screen panels I use in my county. The amount of shenanigans that have been happening since these systems were implemented is also telling. The same, identical system used in my precinct seems to always break in his? Creating lines out the door and around the block. Sure fire way to discourage a voter from sticking around on a cold, snowy/rainy Ohio day in November.

 

The only time you should be removed from voter roles is when you die, not because you don't vote every year/major election. i.e. certain races only voted for Obama and haven't voted since, but I'd imagine plenty are energized now after being absent for x amt of years... come to vote, then find out they were purged.

 

It's so obvious what's happening here, under the guise of preventing the non-existent voter fraud that a certain side seems to think runs rampant. Purge when death cert is generated. Problem solved, not sure why this isn't a thing already.

I've had to update my registration every time I've moved - in PA at least you have to go to your assigned voting station, which is based on your address. It's just making sure the records are up to date and accurate. Should something as important as deciding who runs the city/state/nation really be something where the records are left to rot?

 

This is simple database maintenance - making sure records are current. And if a registration isn't kept current, there are two choices - hunt down a person who apparently isn't interested enough to update his information himself, or purge the record and let that person re-register when they're so inclined. But if that person can't be bothered to vote or keep his registration info current, why should the government work to maintain it for him. Letting the person re-register is simply the easier option.

 

 

[DConnell Member]

18 hours ago, wakjak said:

Oi. Still on about a thing that never ever existed. Still can't keep Obama out of your posts, almost 2 years later huh? Go figure.

 

Voting rights should not be possible to be purged. Clearly there needs to be something done to fix this idiotic system that purges people from their right to vote.

 

If it were as simple as death/moving, then clearly the states need a better way to obtain that information. How about when someone dies, they're death information or certificate is sent and logged in to at a state government facility? Add a simple program on a PC somewhere and have funeral homes enter them into a government database, then you don't have the issue. Same with moving.

Voting rights are not "being purged". Inactive registrations are. If these people, when they decided to vote again, were being prevented from registering again, then your statement would make sense.

 

When an election is coming up, I make sure I have my voter registration available and that the info is up to date. If it isn't I update any out-of-date information and get a new card sent out. It's part of the responsibility of voting, and it isn't difficult.

[shockz]

39 minutes ago, DConnell said:

I've had to update my registration every time I've moved - in PA at least you have to go to your assigned voting station, which is based on your address. It's just making sure the records are up to date and accurate. Should something as important as deciding who runs the city/state/nation really be something where the records are left to rot?

 

This is simple database maintenance - making sure records are current. And if a registration isn't kept current, there are two choices - hunt down a person who apparently isn't interested enough to update his information himself, or purge the record and let that person re-register when they're so inclined. But if that person can't be bothered to vote or keep his registration info current, why should the government work to maintain it for him. Letting the person re-register is simply the easier option.

 

 

We're not talking about moving. Obviously you have to update your registration when you move. You just don't show up to a precinct and vote after moving. That issue is self correcting.

 

The issue here is that voters (who haven't moved) are thrown out of the system because they chose not to vote for whatever reason, doesn't matter honestly.... whether or not it's because they can't decide, don't care about that particular election, or just didn't have the time. Again, why should any of that matter? The issue is that when they do actually go out and vote, they no longer can because their registration was tossed out.

 

Also, the death issue SHOULD (not sure why it's this hard) also be self correcting when a death cert is issued... it is for just about everything else. The only thing this does is remove actual legit citizens from voting. Plain and simple. The case revolved around a man who indicated he had not been notified btw. 

 

Voter records aren't in shambles, if they were, you'd be seeing a lot more headlines about it. This is a "problem" that really doesn't need this level of intervention.

[Buttus]

why don't they just link it to or combine it drivers licenses?   no one is complaining about having to renew their drivers license, so just add voting registration to it? (you can deny or re-register, whichever you choose)

 

if your drivers license expires, so does your voting registration

[DConnell Member]

18 minutes ago, Buttus said:

why don't they just link it to or combine it drivers licenses?   no one is complaining about having to renew their drivers license, so just add voting registration to it? (you can deny or re-register, whichever you choose)

 

if your drivers license expires, so does your voting registration

That might work, assuming that most eligible citizens have a driver's license or non-driver's ID.