Supreme Court upholds Ohio method of removing names from voter rolls

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by ucfgrad93, Jun 11, 2018.

  1. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68040

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #2
    Me neither. How else can you make sure people are who they say they are? You need to vote to stay on the rolls. I remember, as a kid, we moved literally three blocks away and my mom went to vote and they said she couldn't. She had to re-register at her new address.
     
  2. AlliFlowers Contributor

    AlliFlowers

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Location:
    L.A. (Lower Alabama)
    #3
    You shouldn't be removed unless you move and register elsewhere, commit a crime that causes you to lose that right, or die. All these things come with paperwork provided by another bureaucracy that can automatically inform for registration.
     
  3. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #4
    This is just another example of why voting should follow Oregons' example: By mail. Cheaper, easier and less chance of fraud. Also makes this irrelevant.
     
  4. LizKat macrumors 601

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #5
    I agree. Purges of inactive voters' registration records can be applied as another form of voter suppression. The registration removals will hit mostly minorities, the elderly, disabled, veterans, people without public transportation to distant polling places. A USA Today piece noted that six or so other states do have some similar laws now but Ohio's is more aggressive: if you don't vote in two years, ignore a warning notice and don't vote for four more, you're gone. It's expected that the GOP will urge more states to purge their rolls of inactive voters in the near future. The piece quotes some Republican making a point that he sees this as a warning to people not to try to use federal laws to run states' election processes. Possibly a veiled reference to the Voting Rights Act which is being gutted one piece at a time by the GOP on grounds the extra scrutiny of voting processes in certain mostly southern states is no longer warranted. Heh. Maybe the voting rights in every state need to be buttressed.

    Meanwhile those who wish to vote for "none of the above" better try to go do that in person at the polls instead of just staying home.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-states-purge-voters-who-dont-vote/587316002/

    Time for the Dems to go reggie some Ohio voters. About seven thousand of them had been removed when the state was taken to court over this matter, I guess now they're "gone again"...
     
  5. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #6
    Trump is happy about this - so you know... it's not likely to be good. lol
     
  6. LizKat macrumors 601

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #7
    I favor that as well. But leaving that aside, even the appearance of "revoking" a right by purging of inactive registrations is absurd. We don't do that with our right to worship or our right to bear arms... why should it be the case that if you don't vote then your reggie expires like a case of old canned goods in a supermarket. Mind you I would encourage everyone to vote, but since it's not a requirement, then I believe the states should not be seen as essentially entangling that right in its exercise.

    Sure they may say you can apply for a provisional ballot and all that. Who knows what happens in that process, especially in states that do set about trying to suppress turnout of certain groups of voters. Even the high court acknowledged (in the dissent) that "certain groups" will tend to be disadvantaged by their ruling in the Ohio case.
     
  7. thewitt macrumors 68020

    thewitt

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
  8. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #9
    I believe the 14th and 15th Amendments spell out the right to vote. There is some wiggle room, but no less than the 2nd Amendment (for example).
     
  9. Huntn macrumors P6

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #10
    Agree 100%, more maneuvering to throw up obstacles to the demographic that the GOP perceives as hostile to them.

    Texas is absolutely primitive, no easy absentee balloting. They too do not want to make it easy cause it is against their best interest in depressing the vote. On a trip over seas, they wanted me to mail my ballot from over there! :oops: I voted by mail for 30 years in Minnesota, just too convienent. :(
     
  10. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #11
    So, the implication is that States design their voting to be difficult? BTW, love Minnesota...if I could deal with the weather, i would live there vs Oregon...
     
  11. Huntn macrumors P6

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #12
    The implication is that laws like the one mentioned in this thread is designed specifically for this purpose although they will deny that. You know they are big on the thousands of people who commit voter fraud each election. :rolleyes::oops:
     
  12. LizKat macrumors 601

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #13
    Sure but the reason the Voting Rights Act legislation existed was that some states were doing all they could to suppress voter turnout by groups they expected would vote for Democratic Party candidates. Now the GOP is back to arguing that hey the 14th and 15th amendments are good enough for government work and other federal-level concern over voters' rights is overkill and that the states have every right to supervise their own election processes including maintenance of reggie rolls. They should have a care or they'll end up in court again on violations of the 14th and 15th amendments which is what landed them the VRA scrutiny to begin with.
     
  13. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #14
    Well, since 28th (and on) Amendments are up for discussion - I'd like to see one about implementing Oregons voting practices nation-wide. If only to see the objections...
    --- Post Merged, Jun 11, 2018 ---
    So, to paraphrase: The 10th Amendment is used to circumvent the 14th and 15th?
     
  14. Snoopy4 macrumors 6502a

    Snoopy4

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    #15
    Only 49 states to go!
     
  15. flyinmac macrumors 68040

    flyinmac

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Location:
    United States
    #16
    I register to vote twice a year where I live. Whether there’s anything to vote on or not.

    Twice a year (whether I move or not) I fill out a form with my present address, my current affiliation (undeclared), and verification information.

    This makes sure that the lists are kept up to date at the poling places.

    And every time I update, I’m issued a new card that tells me where to vote.

    Claiming that it will hit minority’s and poor, etc. the hardest is ridiculous.

    Considering that 90% of the people in my area probably qualify for at least one, if not multiple of the categories you list. Yet they all manage to make it out to vote.

    If voting is important to you, then you will do what it takes to remain registered with current information. Even the homeless here find a way to keep their registration current.

    Nobody should expect to be able to walk in somewhere to vote if they haven’t kept their registration current.

    We all have challenges in life. What if I’m a minority race, gay, unemployed (broke), starving, missing 3 limbs, can’t drive, and it snowed 10 feet on voting day?? Sound ridiculous?? Well it happens. And if it’s important to someone, they manage to get to the right place and before the polls close.

    And considering I can register to vote, and update my registration anytime I like, it’s not that hard. Surely if they can pay their cell phone bill to complain on YouTube about being disenfranchised, they could have found 5 minutes somewhere during the year to update their registration.
     
  16. LizKat macrumors 601

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #17
    Pretty much the justification of their behavior. But what's overlooked by these guys is that their voter suppression tactics had caused them to be in violation of the 14th and 15th and so brought about the federal level supervision in the Voting Rights Act. If cases can be made that this is happening all over again --regardless of the demographics of the disenfranchised-- then those trying to suppress voter turnout will be back to square one with another voting rights act breathing down their necks for decades to come.

    It's one thing to joke about now the dead can't vote any more. It's another thing to try to suppress the vote of people who for whatever reasons may have skipped voting for a couple of election cycles. It's a third thing when it starts looking like the effort is focused on demographics that traditionally or recently may have favored Democratic Party candidates.

    People here arguing for universal mail-in balloting are probably on the right track, we just need to press state legislatures to go there. Another reason for Democratic activists to focus on state and local elections not just on the star slot of the US Presidency.
     
  17. Snoopy4 macrumors 6502a

    Snoopy4

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    #18
    Voter suppression is when dead people vote and negate my vote. That and jungle primaries.
     
  18. ThisBougieLife, Jun 11, 2018
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2018

    ThisBougieLife macrumors 68000

    ThisBougieLife

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Location:
    SF Bay Area, California
    #19
    While I can see how voter I.D. laws might effectively disenfranchise minority voters, how exactly does this affect them? Are there statistics that show minorities are less likely to vote? It seems young people are less likely to vote too, but I'm not going to call this policy ageist.

    I'm very wary of GOP efforts to disenfranchise voters, but this seems relatively harmless to me.
     
  19. Snoopy4 macrumors 6502a

    Snoopy4

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    #20

    Voter ID laws don’t suppress anyone either. If you can go pick up your welfare check, then you have time to go get a $10 ID card. You likely already have one if you can get the cell phone you’re holding and cash that welfare check. Not much anyone can do without an ID anymore. Those that don’t have one, the government can give out for free. The one time budget item would probably be about $1000 for the entire country.
     
  20. flyinmac macrumors 68040

    flyinmac

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Location:
    United States
    #21
    Yes, anybody who values voting will meet the requirements prior to Election Day.

    Register to vote. Get a valid ID. Show up on Election Day.

    It’s really not that major. You have all year to figure out a plan.

    If I can get there, anybody can get there.
    --- Post Merged, Jun 11, 2018 ---
    The “if you... welfare...” line usually riles me as I know a lot of poor people who legitimately struggle and are looked down on by those who presume that they are just lazy.

    But in this context, I agree.

    Anyone who fails to vote, does so at their own effort. The standards are way too relaxed.

    You should be required to show active participation to prove you’re still alive.

    You should be required to register at least once a year. And you should be required to show up at at least one of the dozens of elections that happen in every two year period.

    If you can’t be bothered to vote, then obviously you don’t care enough to vote.

    Everybody wants their voice heard on YouTube. But they’re too lazy to get an ID card, fill out a form, and vote. Obviously they don’t want to be heard, they just want to make noise.
     
  21. thewitt macrumors 68020

    thewitt

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    #22
    Total bull. Republicans have never worked to suppress the vote, and voter ID laws have NEVER been shown to actually do this.

    Total Democrat talking point BS.
     
  22. 0007776 Suspended

    0007776

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #23
    I don’t see a problem with this law. If you don’t bother to vote for multiple elections that’s a good sign your registration is no longer accurate.
     
  23. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #24
    Gerrymandering cases would easily refute your point. Also, why isn't ID free (or subsidized)? It obviously makes life easier for everyone involved (holder, law enforcement, govt agencies etc)...
    --- Post Merged, Jun 11, 2018 ---
    or you're lazy. This ruling seems common-sense enough, unless voting is a Constitutional Right...which is a topic of discussion...
    --- Post Merged, Jun 11, 2018 ---
    jungle primaries? sounds exciting. also foreign. also probably not-white. I could see why some on the Right might shy away...they tend to hate all those things. Hate to break it to you, but by 2050 the demographics of the US will not have white people as a majority anymore.
    --- Post Merged, Jun 11, 2018 ---
    well, your "head" obviously doesn't like jokes. Also, I'm sure plenty of voters vote with their "heart" (for better-or-worse).
     
  24. Snoopy4 macrumors 6502a

    Snoopy4

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    #25
    Why does it need to be free? It’s $10 in my state.
     

Share This Page