Supreme Court makes it easier to cull voter registrations

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Hmm, so it is six years. Is that a sufficient length of time before removing names?

No, not at all. If they're a citizen, they should remain on the voter rolls. How rarely or frequently they exercise their right to vote shouldn't factor into that. If there's only one candidate per generation whom they feel is worth the trouble to get up off their couch for, there should be no impediments to their wandering into a polling booth and casting their ballot once every twenty-five years.

Why don't you just auto-register people based on their tax forms like normal countries do? You Americans just seem to love adding unnecessary complexity to everything for the sake of making it all dumber and more inefficient.

Well, as I said earlier in this thread, I was kept on the Georgia rolls at least fourteen years after I moved to California and registered to vote in California and paid taxes in California. There's got to be some process for removing names, unless you really want me to vote in both states.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, as I said earlier in this thread, I was kept on the Georgia rolls at least fourteen years after I moved to California and registered to vote in California. There's got to be some process for removing names, unless you really want me to vote in both states.

Geez, if only I'd specifically mentioned that process in my post or something. If only ...

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Well, as I said earlier in this thread, I was kept on the Georgia rolls at least fourteen years after I moved to California and registered to vote in California. There's got to be some process for removing names, unless you really want me to vote in both states.

Geez, if only I'd specifically mentioned that process in my post or something. If only ...

That would discriminate against those who don't pay taxes, which might not be a bad thing overall but would raise howls of indignation from the Democratic side.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, as I said earlier in this thread, I was kept on the Georgia rolls at least fourteen years after I moved to California and registered to vote in California. There's got to be some process for removing names, unless you really want me to vote in both states.

Geez, if only I'd specifically mentioned that process in my post or something. If only ...

That would discriminate against those who don't pay taxes, which might not be a bad thing overall but would raise howls of indignation from the Democratic side.

Then they can go into an office and register manually. The need for a few to do that doesn't impact the ability of the other 99% of the population to have it done without any effort or concern.

American objections to things are weird.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

That would discriminate against those who don't pay taxes, which might not be a bad thing overall but would raise howls of indignation from the Democratic side.

Then they can go into an office and register manually. The need for a few to do that doesn't impact the ability of the other 99% of the population to have it done without any effort or concern.

American objections to things are weird.

As we've learned from the Voter ID discussions (and the soft racism of low expectations exhibited therein) making anyone do anything extra is discriminatory.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

That would discriminate against those who don't pay taxes, which might not be a bad thing overall but would raise howls of indignation from the Democratic side.

Then they can go into an office and register manually. The need for a few to do that doesn't impact the ability of the other 99% of the population to have it done without any effort or concern.

American objections to things are weird.

As we've learned from the Voter ID discussions (and the soft racism of low expectations exhibited therein) making anyone do anything extra is discriminatory.

I refer you back to my "American objections to things are weird" remark.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Having any expectations of competence is weird, true.

 

[Keith&Co.]

What do you suggest to cleans them in a non-biased non-partisan manner?

I think the biggest problem is the 2 year thing. And the single letter. A much greater time band for voter participation would seem less likely to 'accidentally' disenfranchise people.

You are in luck, because there wasn't any "2 year thing" for removal.

Ohio removes registrants from the rolls only if they “fai[l] to respond” and “con-tinu[e] to be inactive for an additional period of four con-secutive years, including two federal general elections....Combined with the two years of nonvoting before notice is sent, that makes a total of six years of nonvoting before removal”​

Must have misheard.
Still, six years even seems precipitous. What's the hurry?
We're out to remove dead people from the rolls, not lazy or disaffected or whatever.
Trump's commission couldn't find very much evidence that these surplus registrations are being abused, so why not a much larger window?

Every year there seems to be someone having an issue with one or another federal agency declaring them dead, then dragging their feet on admitting the man standing on their counter, singing Spamalot's "Not Yet Dead" is, in fact, entitled to benefits and recognition.

Even if we don't assume sinister political efforts to deny actual voters their actual chance to vote, the expectation of incompetence and error drives me to desire a much larger waiting period before implementing.

When I worked for an Xray department at the hospital, we didn't toss any patient's records into the recycle bin until sixty years after their last recorded visit... It's not like they're going to get less deader at some point if we wait too long.

 

[James Madison]

You are in luck, because there wasn't any "2 year thing" for removal.

Ohio removes registrants from the rolls only if they “fai[l] to respond” and “con-tinu[e] to be inactive for an additional period of four con-secutive years, including two federal general elections....Combined with the two years of nonvoting before notice is sent, that makes a total of six years of nonvoting before removal”​

Hmm, so it is six years. Is that a sufficient length of time before removing names?

Along with notice? Tentatively, I’ll say yes. Yes. Six years is 3 federal election cycles, maybe just as many state and local election cycles.

However, I say tentatively as I’d like some data and facts.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

Hmm, so it is six years. Is that a sufficient length of time before removing names?

No, not at all. If they're a citizen, they should remain on the voter rolls.

Really? Even if they’ve take up residence on a pleasant, tranquil, icy desert in Antarctica for the last 30 years, haven’t voted in any election in the U.S. for 30 years, and demonstrates no desire or intention of returning or voting?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Hmm, so it is six years. Is that a sufficient length of time before removing names?

No, not at all. If they're a citizen, they should remain on the voter rolls.

Really? Even if they’ve take up residence on a pleasant, tranquil, icy desert in Antarctica for the last 30 years, haven’t voted in any election in the U.S. for 30 years, and demonstrates no desire or intention of returning or voting?

Yes. Why not? They're still citizens and should still have the ability to exercise their right to vote whenever they like.

If someone hasn't purchased a gun in the last 30 years, should the second amendment no longer apply for them? If someone hasn't said anything controversial in the last 30 years, should the government therefore be allowed to abridge their freedom of speech?

 

[James Madison]

You are in luck, because there wasn't any "2 year thing" for removal.

Ohio removes registrants from the rolls only if they “fai[l] to respond” and “con-tinu[e] to be inactive for an additional period of four con-secutive years, including two federal general elections....Combined with the two years of nonvoting before notice is sent, that makes a total of six years of nonvoting before removal”​

Must have misheard.
Still, six years even seems precipitous. What's the hurry?
We're out to remove dead people from the rolls, not lazy or disaffected or whatever.
Trump's commission couldn't find very much evidence that these surplus registrations are being abused, so why not a much larger window?

Every year there seems to be someone having an issue with one or another federal agency declaring them dead, then dragging their feet on admitting the man standing on their counter, singing Spamalot's "Not Yet Dead" is, in fact, entitled to benefits and recognition.

Even if we don't assume sinister political efforts to deny actual voters their actual chance to vote, the expectation of incompetence and error drives me to desire a much larger waiting period before implementing.

When I worked for an Xray department at the hospital, we didn't toss any patient's records into the recycle bin until sixty years after their last recorded visit... It's not like they're going to get less deader at some point if we wait too long.

With the frequency in which people move, change address and residence, 6 years is not precipitous, especially when one consider A) notice sent and B) no response to notice for at least 4 years after notice was sent and C) no vote cast in the 4 years after notice was sent.

Those facts do not suggest acting precipitously.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

Really? Even if they’ve take up residence on a pleasant, tranquil, icy desert in Antarctica for the last 30 years, haven’t voted in any election in the U.S. for 30 years, and demonstrates no desire or intention of returning or voting?

Yes. Why not? They're still citizens and should still have the ability to exercise their right to vote whenever they like.

If someone hasn't purchased a gun in the last 30 years, should the second amendment no longer apply for them? If someone hasn't said anything controversial in the last 30 years, should the government therefore be allowed to abridge their freedom of speech?

Nice parallels. Compare the loss of a right with being removed from voter registration rolls, such removal is not denying them the right to vote as they are still eligible to vote and still eligible to register to vote. So, your examples aren’t comparable.

There is a rational basis to attach voter rolls to residency. Whether someone may cast a ballot for a candidate for the House of Reps. in a specific federal district in New York depends on residency. Whether someone may cast a ballot for a candidate in a particular county or city election depends on residency. Whether someone may cast a ballot for a specific candidate for the state legislature most likely depends on residency. Where to vote, where to cast a ballot, is often determined by residence.

Hence, someone who is not a resident at all has no need to be on the voter registration roll for the particular state, city, or county for which they are not a resident. Someone who is no longer a resident of the state, county, or city has no need to be on the voter registration roll for that state, county, or city.

So, it makes perfect sense to remove the Antarctic loving resident in my example from the voter registration roll of New York.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bilby]

Having any expectations of competence is weird, true.

When dealing with Americans, it's not so much weird as foolhardy.

 

[ZiprHead]

Having any expectations of competence is weird, true.

When dealing with Americans, it's not so much weird as foolhardy.

upside down boy.

 

[Axulus]

Well, as I said earlier in this thread, I was kept on the Georgia rolls at least fourteen years after I moved to California and registered to vote in California. There's got to be some process for removing names, unless you really want me to vote in both states.

Geez, if only I'd specifically mentioned that process in my post or something. If only ...

Lots of people don't file tax returns. Also, elections are run by each state, not the federal government. The states don't get automatic access to federal tax returns.

Also, people aren't required to put their address of residency on a federal return. Just a valid mailing address.

 

[RavenSky]

It's weird that you're not automatically registered to vote like how it is in first world countries.

I see what you did there.

Can't disagree these days

 

[RavenSky]

I tire of this attitude. Like you, I wish to see the democratic party move in a more progressive direction. But to state that elections don't matter because both parties are the same is lazy and misleading. This attitude is so easy, and it's everywhere and I think, a major contributor to why people do not vote. Just imagine where we would be right now with President Hillary Clinton. Can you honestly not think of any ways in which things would be better for the US, even this early in the President's cycle? No Neil Gorsuch. The one thing Trump has done well, filling the federal bench with bullshit conservative judges. Obamacare would not be under constant attack. It may have even been improved. The Justice Department? Would it be better off without a fucking klansman at the helm? The border situation? (It was even abysmal under Obama, I know, but it's definitely worse now). That big ass Omnibus bill? The Muslim ban?

Look, the dems need a WHOLE lot of improvement, but at least they still feel pressure from the people. At least some of them ARE good people, trying to help. The GOP and Trump have demonstrated very clearly they will go directly and obviously against the will of the people to pursue their agenda and not give a FUCK. Progressives will NOT get elected at all if the dems do not get a foothold.

Great post. I totally agree. On the left, we all have different ideas regarding economics and the role of government in the economy. I want a bigger safety net. But probably a smaller safety net than what Arkirk wants. But is that reason to whine and not vote for anyone left of republicans? Here's what we all do agree on: protecting the environment, state and federal parks, less government intrusion in private lives, less US military footprint, more affordable schools, science, gay rights, sensible gun regulation, and etc. Jesus Christ, the republicans pulling out of the Paris accord should motivate anyone left of center to make their vote count next election.

BOTH of these posts!!!

 

[RavenSky]

In a 5-4 ruling the court upheld Ohio's process of culling voter roles for people who miss voting in a two year period. They send them a notice and then if they don’t vote over the next four years they remove them. This is how the Rethuglicans get to stay in power. They cull voters in minority districts.

Republicans cull living voters, Democrats count dead voters. Still, these are both on the periphery of the major ways in which the two parties manipulate the voting system to limit our choices.

Always love the good ole fashioned false equivalency, this time relying on a false statement.

yep

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What do you suggest to cleans them in a non-biased non-partisan manner?

I think the biggest problem is the 2 year thing. And the single letter. A much greater time band for voter participation would seem less likely to 'accidentally' disenfranchise people.

You are in luck, because there wasn't any "2 year thing" for removal.

Ohio removes registrants from the rolls only if they “fai[l] to respond” and “con-tinu[e] to be inactive for an additional period of four con-secutive years, including two federal general elections....Combined with the two years of nonvoting before notice is sent, that makes a total of six years of nonvoting before removal”​

Which seems plenty long enough to me. While the efforts to remove "ineligible" voters generally strike me as way out of line I don't think purging inactive records such as this as a problem.