Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Mr. Nice!
Oct 13, 2005

bone shaking.
soul baking.
Don't forget, almost every single member of the Trump family and close associates are registered to vote in multiple districts.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

OJ MIST 2 THE DICK
Sep 11, 2008

Anytime I need to see your face I just close my eyes
And I am taken to a place
Where your crystal minds and magenta feelings
Take up shelter in the base of my spine
Sweet like a chica cherry cola

-Cheap Trick

Nap Ghost

hobbesmaster posted:

What if you move? Doesn’t that create duplicate registrations? If they remove you for failing to respond at address A do they remove your record at address B?

the entire nominal* point of the Ohio law under question was to eliminate registrations from people who moved and never bothered to tell the board of elections

They also quite literally followed the federal election law statutes to a T, with the issue being that "Is it reasonable to suspect that people failing to vote for 2 years to have moved if they didnt tell the Post Office"

Groovelord Neato
Dec 6, 2014


Syzygy Stardust posted:

We’re not looking for them.

we're not looking for unicorns either.

Mr. Nice!
Oct 13, 2005

bone shaking.
soul baking.
I'm just gonna quote a big chunk from the dissent here. The NVRA allows a state to remove people who have moved from the rolls, but prevents people from being removed for just not voting. Ohio is using non-voting status as the sole evidence that someone has moved and is justifying removing their name from the rolls as a result. Justice Breyer acknowledges that Ohio is sending out notices and does receive some back, but goes into the numbers and breaks out how they're completely ineffective at their stated purpose (that is to determine if someone has moved so they can be stricken from the rolls)

quote:

As a general matter, the problem these numbers reveal is as follows: Very few registered voters move outside of their county of registration. But many registered voters fail to vote. Most registered voters who fail to vote also fail to respond to the State’s “last chance” notice. And the number of registered voters who both fail to vote and fail to respond to the “last chance” notice exceeds the number of registered voters who move outside of their county each year.
Consider the following facts. First, Ohio tells us that a small number of Americans—about 4% of all Americans— move outside of their county each year. Record 376. (The majority suggests the relevant number is 10%, ante, at 2, but that includes people who move within their county.) At the same time, a large number of American voters fail to vote, and Ohio voters are no exception. In 2014, around 59% of Ohio’s registered voters failed to vote.
Although many registrants fail to vote and only a small number move, under the Supplemental Process, Ohio uses a registrant’s failure to vote to identify that registrant as a person whose address has likely changed. The record shows that in 2012 Ohio identified about 1.5 million regis- tered voters—nearly 20% of its 8 million registered voters—as likely ineligible to remain on the federal voter roll because they changed their residences. Record 475. Ohio then sent those 1.5 million registered voters subsubsection (d) “last chance” confirmation notices. In response to those 1.5 million notices, Ohio only received back about 60,000 return cards (or 4%) which said, in effect, “You are right, Ohio. I have, in fact, moved.” Ibid. In addition, Ohio received back about 235,000 return cards which said, in effect, “You are wrong, Ohio, I have not moved.” In the end, however, there were more than 1,000,000 notices—the vast majority of notices sent—to which Ohio received back no return card at all. Ibid.
What about those registered voters—more than 1 million strong—who did not send back their return cards? Is there any reason at all (other than their failure to vote) to think they moved? The answer to this question must be no. There is no reason at all. First, those 1 million or so voters accounted for about 13% of Ohio’s voting population. So if those 1 million or so registered voters (or even half of them) had, in fact, moved, then vastly more people must move each year in Ohio than is generally true of the roughly 4% of all Americans who move to a different county nationwide (not all of whom are registered voters). See Id., at 376. But there is no reason to think this. Ohio offers no such reason. And the streets of Ohio’s cities are not filled with moving vans; nor has Cleveland become the Nation’s residential moving companies’ headquarters. Thus, I think it fair to assume (because of the human tendency not to send back cards received in the mail, confirmed strongly by the actual numbers in this record) the following: In respect to change of residence, the failure of more than 1 million Ohio voters to respond to forward- able notices (the vast majority of those sent) shows nothing at all that is statutorily significant.
To put the matter in the present statutory context: When a State relies upon a registrant’s failure to vote to initiate the Confirmation Procedure, it violates the Failure- to-Vote Clause, and a State’s subsequent use of the Confirmation Procedure cannot save the State’s program from that defect. Even if that were not so, a nonreturned confirmation notice adds nothing to the State’s understanding of whether the voter has moved or not. And that, I repeat, is because a nonreturned confirmation notice (as the numbers show) cannot reasonably indicate a change of address.
Finally, let us return to §8’s basic mandate and purpose. Ohio’s program must “mak[e] a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters” from its federal rolls on change-of-residence grounds. §20507(a)(4) (emphasis added). Reasonableness under §8(a) is primarily measured in terms of the program’s compliance with “subsections (b), (c), and (d).” §20507(a)(4)(B). That includes the broad prohibition on removing registrants because of their failure to vote. More generally, the statute seeks to “protect the integrity of the electoral process” and “ensure that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained.” §§20501(b)(3), (4). Ohio’s system adds to its non-voting-based identification system a factor that has no tendency to reveal accurately whether the registered voter has changed residences. Nothing plus one is still one. And, if that “one” consists of a failure to vote, then Ohio’s program also fails to make the requisite “reasonable effort” to comply with subsection (a)’s statutory mandate. It must violate the statute.

Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Jun 11, 2018

Mr. Nice!
Oct 13, 2005

bone shaking.
soul baking.
Also read Sotomayor's dissent in whole because she explains the disparate impact issue. Ohio even acknowledges that this law is disproportionately affecting minorities and targeted communities but that there's no claim there because that requires a different claim for relief.

VitalSigns
Sep 3, 2011

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that black people are removed from voter rolls at over twice the rate of white people, black people just must all be fleeing Ohio and therefore you have to kick them off the rolls as fast as possible to maintain the integrity of the voter registry, ayup.

VVVV
Come on man, that's not subtle enough to be a good troll.

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Jun 11, 2018

Syzygy Stardust
Mar 1, 2017

by R. Guyovich

VitalSigns posted:

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that black people are removed from voter rolls at over twice the rate of white people, black people just must all be fleeing Ohio and therefore you have to kick them off the rolls as fast as possible to maintain the integrity of the voter registry, ayup.

It’s probably related to the behaviors that also lead to lower credit ratings. Or why disenfranchisement of felons hits them harder. Not everything is a conspiracy, some groups are just better and worse at some objective criteria. In this case it’s voting consistently and reading your mail.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

OJ MIST 2 THE DICK
Sep 11, 2008

Anytime I need to see your face I just close my eyes
And I am taken to a place
Where your crystal minds and magenta feelings
Take up shelter in the base of my spine
Sweet like a chica cherry cola

-Cheap Trick

Nap Ghost

Mr. Nice! posted:

Also read Sotomayor's dissent in whole because she explains the disparate impact issue. Ohio even acknowledges that this law is disproportionately affecting minorities and targeted communities but that there's no claim there because that requires a different claim for relief.

While I feel for the dissent, I kind of think ultimately the issue isnt with the Ohio law, but rather that its highlighting a weakness in the federal relevant statutes (that were rewritten under Dubya) that let this sort of loophole exist.

Unfortunately it's also not really unconstitutional either (unless you're Clarence Thomas) which means that this isnt really the right venue to seek relief, since it really should be Congress fixing it.

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

Javid posted:

I mean, it sounds like a person still has to not vote once in six years AND fail to return a postcard that costs nothing, it's not like they're actively purging the rolls of people who voted six months ago. How many people meeting the above criteria are suddenly going to give enough of a poo poo to vote in year seven?

All that really means is skipping one presidential election and two midterms, which isn't even slightly unusual.

In any case, there's no reason to speak in vague theoreticals, because we know laws like these disenfranchise people, and we know that leaving outdated voter registrations on the books doesn't cause any particular harm. Ohio is engaging in practices that are very likely to rob people of their votes in order to avert an essentially nonexistent risk of potential extra votes. From the POV of minimizing the damage done, it makes no sense.

Devor
Nov 30, 2004
Lurking more.

exploded mummy posted:

While I feel for the dissent, I kind of think ultimately the issue isnt with the Ohio law, but rather that its highlighting a weakness in the federal relevant statutes (that were rewritten under Dubya) that let this sort of loophole exist.

Unfortunately it's also not really unconstitutional either (unless you're Clarence Thomas) which means that this isnt really the right venue to seek relief, since it really should be Congress fixing it.

The loophole exists because the conservative majority chose to give part of the law zero effect:

The Law:
Don’t do X solely due to Y
If you’re going to do thing X, you gotta do Z1, Z2, Z3

Ohio:
We’re gonna do thing X because Y, then Z1, Z2, Z3

How the gently caress can you ignore that you can’t do X solely for Y!?! Z1-3 are describing the confirmation that has to happen regardless. If you wanted to violate the X because Y rule, you’re still subject to the rest. Ohio is pretending that the confirmation step is acting as the identification, when in reality they are using the illegal method of identification

Devor fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Jun 11, 2018

OJ MIST 2 THE DICK
Sep 11, 2008

Anytime I need to see your face I just close my eyes
And I am taken to a place
Where your crystal minds and magenta feelings
Take up shelter in the base of my spine
Sweet like a chica cherry cola

-Cheap Trick

Nap Ghost

Main Paineframe posted:

All that really means is skipping one presidential election and two midterms, which isn't even slightly unusual.

In any case, there's no reason to speak in vague theoreticals, because we know laws like these disenfranchise people, and we know that leaving outdated voter registrations on the books doesn't cause any particular harm. Ohio is engaging in practices that are very likely to rob people of their votes in order to avert an essentially nonexistent risk of potential extra votes. From the POV of minimizing the damage done, it makes no sense.

52 U.S. Code § 20507 (a)(4)(B) requires states to conduct voter roll purges based on people moved and due diligence was done to verify they had moved

Devor
Nov 30, 2004
Lurking more.

exploded mummy posted:

52 U.S. Code § 20507 (a)(4)(B) requires states to conduct voter roll purges based on people moved and due diligence was done to verify they had moved

What do sections b and d say. Read the dissent to help you find it

OJ MIST 2 THE DICK
Sep 11, 2008

Anytime I need to see your face I just close my eyes
And I am taken to a place
Where your crystal minds and magenta feelings
Take up shelter in the base of my spine
Sweet like a chica cherry cola

-Cheap Trick

Nap Ghost

Devor posted:

What do sections b and d say. Read the dissent to help you find it

That States arent allowed to purge voters for inactivity unless they verify with the Post Office or systematically conduct a purge of ineligible voters in conjunction with a 4 year grace period of receiving a written notice and pre addressed return card with prepaid postage.

The guidance on the supplemental purge is nil.

Sydin
Oct 29, 2011

Another spring commute
So as a casual SCOTUS observer have I missed any other hilariously lovely voter decisions between "racism doesn't exist anymore" and "using a system that removes you from the rolls for not voting doesn't violate the law preventing your removal from the rolls for not voting" or am I good?

As an aside the way the highest court in the land is blatantly going out of it's way to twist the law to gently caress minority voters over is disgusting and embarrassing to a degree I can't quite put into words.

Sydin fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Jun 11, 2018

Platystemon
Feb 13, 2012

BREADS
Does Gorsuch kind of have a point in SVEEN ET AL. v. MELIN ?

I’m sure it’s for the wrong reasons, but still.

e: In short, Minnesota’s law is dumb, but nowhere near dumb enough to risk resurrecting the Contracts Clause.

Platystemon fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Jun 11, 2018

Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011

Mr. Nice! posted:

Also read Sotomayor's dissent in whole because she explains the disparate impact issue. Ohio even acknowledges that this law is disproportionately affecting minorities and targeted communities but that there's no claim there because that requires a different claim for relief.
What method for verifying citizens' eligibility to vote isn't going to disproportionately impact poor people?

Gobbeldygook
May 13, 2009
Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

Dead Reckoning posted:

What method for verifying citizens' eligibility to vote isn't going to disproportionately impact poor people?
We should not be passing laws that effectively disenfranchise lots of people because once in a blue moon someone commits in-person voter fraud. We simply accept that some incredibly small, rare number of people will get away with voter fraud in order to protect the right to vote of thousands of others.

Syzygy Stardust
Mar 1, 2017

by R. Guyovich
Actually, we should sharply limit the franchise.

mdemone
Mar 14, 2001

Syzygy Stardust posted:

It’s probably related to the behaviors that also lead to lower credit ratings. Or why disenfranchisement of felons hits them harder. Not everything is a conspiracy, some groups are just better and worse at some objective criteria. In this case it’s voting consistently and reading your mail.

H-h-h-holy poo poo

Is this what we're doing in this thread these days?

Evil Fluffy
Jul 13, 2009

Scholars are some of the most pompous and pedantic people I've ever had the joy of meeting.

exploded mummy posted:

the entire nominal* point of the Ohio law under question was to eliminate registrations from people who moved and never bothered to tell the board of elections

They also quite literally followed the federal election law statutes to a T, with the issue being that "Is it reasonable to suspect that people failing to vote for 2 years to have moved if they didnt tell the Post Office"

The correct response to that is "do local records show someone else moved in to their location? Yes? Ok we will assume they've moved and set mark them inactive. If they show up to vote we might need to double check with them via ID or something and have them fill out an updated address form but otherwise they can vote." Not "ok well then time to purge the rolls so they can't vote at all if they show up :commissar:"

The GOP put up roadblocks as much as possible because they actively do not want certain groups voting because those groups don't vote for them. If Roberts and co weren't hardcore "gently caress your voting rights" assholes they'd have ruled to the effect that Ohio has to list those people as inactive voters but aren't allowed to remove them simply for not having voted, unless they received notice the person moved or died.

Raldikuk
Apr 7, 2006

I'm bad with money and I want that meatball!
I'm sure Ohio will be quick to pass a same day voter registration law to help people wrongfully caught up in their purges. Any day now I am sure

Taphreek
Jul 18, 2001
RACIST

mdemone posted:

H-h-h-holy poo poo

Is this what we're doing in this thread these days?

Faux outrage aside, are you really going to deny that some groups are going to be objectively better or worse at certain things? As was asked a few posts earlier, what criteria are NOT going to have disparate impact on homeless, indigent, etc people? I understand the position that these laws shouldn't exist in the first place, and I think it is a credible argument, but you're denying reality if you think felons, homeless people, illiterate people, etc., as a group, are not worse at certain activities. Sorry if that bursts your "everyone is equally skilled at everything, all the time" worldview.

Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011

Gobbeldygook posted:

We should not be passing laws that effectively disenfranchise lots of people because once in a blue moon someone commits in-person voter fraud. We simply accept that some incredibly small, rare number of people will get away with voter fraud in order to protect the right to vote of thousands of others.
That wasn't the question. Part of the objection to various voter verification schemes is that they disproportionately affect the poor and disadvantaged. Our low rate of voter fraud is at least in part because we make efforts to verify that people who register or show up to vote are eligible to do so. What method of verifying eligibility will not disproportionately impact poor and disadvantaged?

mdemone
Mar 14, 2001

Taphreek posted:

Faux outrage aside, are you really going to deny that some groups are going to be objectively better or worse at certain things? As was asked a few posts earlier, what criteria are NOT going to have disparate impact on homeless, indigent, etc people? I understand the position that these laws shouldn't exist in the first place, and I think it is a credible argument, but you're denying reality if you think felons, homeless people, illiterate people, etc., as a group, are not worse at certain activities. Sorry if that bursts your "everyone is equally skilled at everything, all the time" worldview.

Sorry, I read that post as saying "some people" i.e. black people, because the black vs. white disparity is what that post was quoting.

Edit: yeah it's definitely Syzygy being racist, read it again

FAUXTON
Jun 2, 2005

spero che tu stia bene

Taphreek posted:

Faux outrage aside, are you really going to deny that some groups are going to be objectively better or worse at certain things? As was asked a few posts earlier, what criteria are NOT going to have disparate impact on homeless, indigent, etc people? I understand the position that these laws shouldn't exist in the first place, and I think it is a credible argument, but you're denying reality if you think felons, homeless people, illiterate people, etc., as a group, are not worse at certain activities. Sorry if that bursts your "everyone is equally skilled at everything, all the time" worldview.

"Doesn't exercise the right at every opportunity" is kind of a poo poo criteria for anything, let alone for throwing up roadblocks when someone wants to go vote.

Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011
If I'm being completely honest, after years of dealing with a previous tenant's aggressive creditors who apparently had no limit on their printing budget, I'm OK with people who don't keep their address up to date and ignore government mailings losing not just their right to vote, but every other right afforded by a free society.

Zoran
Aug 19, 2008

I lost to you once, monster. I shall not lose again! Die now, that our future can live!

Dead Reckoning posted:

If I'm being completely honest, after years of dealing with a previous tenant's aggressive creditors who apparently had no limit on their printing budget, I'm OK with people who don't keep their address up to date and ignore government mailings losing not just their right to vote, but every other right afforded by a free society.

Seems to me that you should be telling the debt collectors to go gently caress themselves (and advocating for them to lose their rights), and not the previous tenant.

Goatse James Bond
Mar 28, 2010

If you see me posting please remind me that I have Charlie Work in the reports forum to do instead

Syzygy Stardust posted:

Actually, we should sharply limit the franchise.

just so we can get this sorted out in a timely fashion: how should we limit the franchise?

Platystemon
Feb 13, 2012

BREADS

Dead Reckoning posted:

If I'm being completely honest, after years of dealing with a previous tenant's aggressive creditors who apparently had no limit on their printing budget, I'm OK with people who don't keep their address up to date and ignore government mailings losing not just their right to vote, but every other right afforded by a free society.

This is like “the reason I support banning all guns is because some kids squirted me with water pistols.”

Piell
Sep 3, 2006

Grey Worm's Ken doll-like groin throbbed with the anticipatory pleasure that only a slightly warm and moist piece of lemoncake could offer


Young Orc

GreyjoyBastard posted:

just so we can get this sorted out in a timely fashion: how should we limit the franchise?

Well, it was white men only for a while, we could try minority women only for a while and see how that goes.

VitalSigns
Sep 3, 2011

Dead Reckoning posted:

That wasn't the question. Part of the objection to various voter verification schemes is that they disproportionately affect the poor and disadvantaged. Our low rate of voter fraud is at least in part because we make efforts to verify that people who register or show up to vote are eligible to do so. What method of verifying eligibility will not disproportionately impact poor and disadvantaged?

Checking social security records for addresses, checking tax records, checking post office address records to see if they're getting mail somewhere else, checking post office records to see if someone moved into their old address, checking deployment records to see if the reason somebody might not have gotten their postcard is because they were serving overseas in the military and then came back and found out the day of the election they couldn't vote.

E:

Dead Reckoning posted:

If I'm being completely honest, after years of dealing with a previous tenant's aggressive creditors who apparently had no limit on their printing budget, I'm OK with people who don't keep their address up to date and ignore government mailings losing not just their right to vote, but every other right afforded by a free society.
Oh well if you'd said from the beginning the poor shouldn't have human rights we could have saved some time, good to know Mr Deontologist Natural Rights Theory Guy

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 03:21 on Jun 12, 2018

Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011

Platystemon posted:

This is like “the reason I support banning all guns is because some kids squirted me with water pistols.”

Zoran posted:

Seems to me that you should be telling the debt collectors to go gently caress themselves (and advocating for them to lose their rights), and not the previous tenant.
Given that he was also being mailed very serious looking envelopes from the Internal Revenue Service, I'm pretty sure the tenant had moved away to skip out on his debts, and I can't really blame the people he owed money for not being willing to believe "doesn't live here" sharpied on the outside of envelopes as the final word.

I also may not have been 100% serious about imprisoning people who don't forward their mail.

VitalSigns
Sep 3, 2011

Dead Reckoning posted:

I can't really blame the people he owed money for not being willing to believe "doesn't live here" sharpied on the outside of envelopes as the final word.

They're legally required to under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

DACK FAYDEN
Feb 25, 2013

Bear Witness

FAUXTON posted:

"Doesn't exercise the right at every opportunity" is kind of a poo poo criteria for anything, let alone for throwing up roadblocks when someone wants to go vote.
I like how the poster with the giant red text saying RACIST jumped straight to "can you really deny that homeless and blah people are inherently worse at everything makes u think"

VitalSigns
Sep 3, 2011

I find it refreshing that no one is wasting time or insulting anyone by pretending to care about up-to-date voter roles, you at least gotta respect the up-front honesty of "yeah black people and the poor should have the vote taken away"

Foxfire_
Nov 8, 2010

It's a bad policy result, but I'm not sure it's a bad ruling.

Looking at § 20507, it does kind of seem like it says you can have a program like Ohio's, and noone seems to have argued that that part of the NVRA is unconstitutional

code:
(b) Confirmation of voter registration 
    Any State program or activity to protect the integrity of the electoral process 
    by ensuring the maintenance of an accurate and current voter registration roll for 
    elections for Federal office

    (1) shall be uniform, nondiscriminatory, and in compliance with the Voting Rights 
        Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973 et seq.) [now 52 U.S.C. 10301 et seq.]; and
        
    (2) shall not result in 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, except that nothing in this paragraph may be construed to prohibit a State from using the 
        procedures described in subsections (c) and (d) to remove an individual from the official list of 
        eligible voters if the individual
        
        (A) has not either notified the applicable registrar (in person or in writing) or responded during 
            the period described in subparagraph (B) to the notice sent by the applicable registrar; and then
        (B) has not voted or appeared to vote in 2 or more consecutive general elections for Federal office.


(c) Voter removal programs
    (1) A State may meet the requirement of subsection (a)(4) by establishing a program under which
    
        (A) change-of-address information supplied by the Postal Service through its licensees is used to
            identify registrants whose addresses may have changed; and
        
        (B) if it appears from information provided by the Postal Service that
            
            (i) a registrant has moved to a different residence address in the same registrar's jurisdiction
                in which the registrant is currently registered, the registrar changes the registration 
                records to show the new address and sends the registrant a notice of the change by forwardable 
                mail and a postage prepaid pre-addressed return form by which the registrant may verify or 
                correct the address information; or
                
            (ii) the registrant has moved to a different residence address not in the same registrar's 
                 jurisdiction, the registrar uses the notice procedure described in subsection (d)(2) to 
                 confirm the change of address.
    
    (2)
        (A) A State shall complete, not later than 90 days prior to the date of a primary or general election 
            for Federal office, any program the purpose of which is to systematically remove the names of 
            ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters.
        (B) Subparagraph (A) shall not be construed to preclude
            (i) the removal of names from official lists of voters on a basis described in paragraph (3)(A) 
                or (B) or (4)(A) of subsection (a); or
            (ii) correction of registration records pursuant to this chapter.

(d) Removal of names from voting rolls
    (1) A State shall not remove the name of a registrant from the official list of eligible voters in elections
        for Federal office on the ground that the registrant has changed residence unless the registrant
        
        (A) confirms in writing that the registrant has changed residence to a place outside the registrar《 
            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.
I think it's a plausible reading that (c) establishes a sufficient program to meet the obligation in (a)(4) [(a)(4) is a bit before this that requires the states to have a program that makes a reasonable effort to remove dead and moved away voters], but that you're allowed to do something else as long as you don't violate (d)

There's a decent argument that the removal procedures are unconstitutional since they burden people's right to vote, but I can't find anywhere where the respondants made that argument.

OJ MIST 2 THE DICK
Sep 11, 2008

Anytime I need to see your face I just close my eyes
And I am taken to a place
Where your crystal minds and magenta feelings
Take up shelter in the base of my spine
Sweet like a chica cherry cola

-Cheap Trick

Nap Ghost

VitalSigns posted:

Checking social security records for addresses, checking tax records, checking post office address records to see if they're getting mail somewhere else, checking post office records to see if someone moved into their old address, checking deployment records to see if the reason somebody might not have gotten their postcard is because they were serving overseas in the military and then came back and found out the day of the election they couldn't vote.

Ultimately it comes down to a proof of residency. Tax records, social security records, and deployment records aren't really great proofs of residency.

Postal records are much stronger proof of residency, but not infallible either. (And Ohio actually uses those to fix voter rolls. The process in the SCOTUS case in question was only applied after the postal records scrub.)

OJ MIST 2 THE DICK fucked around with this message at 12:43 on Jun 12, 2018

Mr. Nice!
Oct 13, 2005

bone shaking.
soul baking.

Foxfire_ posted:

It's a bad policy result, but I'm not sure it's a bad ruling.

Looking at § 20507, it does kind of seem like it says you can have a program like Ohio's, and noone seems to have argued that that part of the NVRA is unconstitutional

code:
(b) Confirmation of voter registration 
    Any State program or activity to protect the integrity of the electoral process 
    by ensuring the maintenance of an accurate and current voter registration roll for 
    elections for Federal office

    (1) shall be uniform, nondiscriminatory, and in compliance with the Voting Rights 
        Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973 et seq.) [now 52 U.S.C. 10301 et seq.]; and
        
    (2) shall not result in 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, except that nothing in this paragraph may be construed to prohibit a State from using the 
        procedures described in subsections (c) and (d) to remove an individual from the official list of 
        eligible voters if the individual
        
        (A) has not either notified the applicable registrar (in person or in writing) or responded during 
            the period described in subparagraph (B) to the notice sent by the applicable registrar; and then
        (B) has not voted or appeared to vote in 2 or more consecutive general elections for Federal office.


(c) Voter removal programs
    (1) A State may meet the requirement of subsection (a)(4) by establishing a program under which
    
        (A) change-of-address information supplied by the Postal Service through its licensees is used to
            identify registrants whose addresses may have changed; and
        
        (B) if it appears from information provided by the Postal Service that
            
            (i) a registrant has moved to a different residence address in the same registrar's jurisdiction
                in which the registrant is currently registered, the registrar changes the registration 
                records to show the new address and sends the registrant a notice of the change by forwardable 
                mail and a postage prepaid pre-addressed return form by which the registrant may verify or 
                correct the address information; or
                
            (ii) the registrant has moved to a different residence address not in the same registrar's 
                 jurisdiction, the registrar uses the notice procedure described in subsection (d)(2) to 
                 confirm the change of address.
    
    (2)
        (A) A State shall complete, not later than 90 days prior to the date of a primary or general election 
            for Federal office, any program the purpose of which is to systematically remove the names of 
            ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters.
        (B) Subparagraph (A) shall not be construed to preclude
            (i) the removal of names from official lists of voters on a basis described in paragraph (3)(A) 
                or (B) or (4)(A) of subsection (a); or
            (ii) correction of registration records pursuant to this chapter.

(d) Removal of names from voting rolls
    (1) A State shall not remove the name of a registrant from the official list of eligible voters in elections
        for Federal office on the ground that the registrant has changed residence unless the registrant
        
        (A) confirms in writing that the registrant has changed residence to a place outside the registrar《 
            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.
I think it's a plausible reading that (c) establishes a sufficient program to meet the obligation in (a)(4) [(a)(4) is a bit before this that requires the states to have a program that makes a reasonable effort to remove dead and moved away voters], but that you're allowed to do something else as long as you don't violate (d)

There's a decent argument that the removal procedures are unconstitutional since they burden people's right to vote, but I can't find anywhere where the respondants made that argument.

Breyers’ dissent covers all of that. The ultimate point is they’re removing people for failure to vote which is in direct violation of the NVRA.

Groovelord Neato
Dec 6, 2014


Syzygy Stardust posted:

Actually, we should sharply limit the franchise.

yeah for people that vote for the ted cruzes and steve kings and donald trumps.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Syzygy Stardust
Mar 1, 2017

by R. Guyovich

Mr. Nice! posted:

Breyers’ dissent covers all of that. The ultimate point is they’re removing people for failure to vote which is in direct violation of the NVRA.

Alito’s opinion covers that - actually, they’re not.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply