|
Don't forget, almost every single member of the Trump family and close associates are registered to vote in multiple districts.
|
# ? Jun 11, 2018 19:46 |
|
|
# ? May 28, 2024 03:40 |
|
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"
|
# ? Jun 11, 2018 19:56 |
|
Syzygy Stardust posted:We’re not looking for them. we're not looking for unicorns either.
|
# ? Jun 11, 2018 20:04 |
|
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. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Jun 11, 2018 |
# ? Jun 11, 2018 20:06 |
|
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.
|
# ? Jun 11, 2018 20:21 |
|
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 |
# ? Jun 11, 2018 20:25 |
|
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)
|
# ? Jun 11, 2018 20:32 |
|
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.
|
# ? Jun 11, 2018 20:41 |
|
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.
|
# ? Jun 11, 2018 20:54 |
|
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. 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 |
# ? Jun 11, 2018 20:54 |
|
Main Paineframe posted:All that really means is skipping one presidential election and two midterms, which isn't even slightly unusual. 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
|
# ? Jun 11, 2018 21:00 |
|
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
|
# ? Jun 11, 2018 21:01 |
|
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.
|
# ? Jun 11, 2018 21:15 |
|
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 |
# ? Jun 11, 2018 22:51 |
|
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 |
# ? Jun 11, 2018 23:12 |
|
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.
|
# ? Jun 12, 2018 00:16 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:What method for verifying citizens' eligibility to vote isn't going to disproportionately impact poor people?
|
# ? Jun 12, 2018 00:35 |
|
Actually, we should sharply limit the franchise.
|
# ? Jun 12, 2018 00:47 |
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?
|
|
# ? Jun 12, 2018 00:51 |
|
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 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 " 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.
|
# ? Jun 12, 2018 01:22 |
|
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
|
# ? Jun 12, 2018 01:32 |
|
mdemone posted:H-h-h-holy poo poo 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.
|
# ? Jun 12, 2018 01:52 |
|
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.
|
# ? Jun 12, 2018 01:56 |
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
|
|
# ? Jun 12, 2018 02:01 |
|
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.
|
# ? Jun 12, 2018 02:09 |
|
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.
|
# ? Jun 12, 2018 02:16 |
|
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.
|
# ? Jun 12, 2018 02:31 |
|
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?
|
# ? Jun 12, 2018 02:39 |
|
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.”
|
# ? Jun 12, 2018 02:41 |
|
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.
|
# ? Jun 12, 2018 03:11 |
|
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. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 03:21 on Jun 12, 2018 |
# ? Jun 12, 2018 03:18 |
|
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. I also may not have been 100% serious about imprisoning people who don't forward their mail.
|
# ? Jun 12, 2018 04:30 |
|
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
|
# ? Jun 12, 2018 04:49 |
|
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.
|
# ? Jun 12, 2018 05:42 |
|
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"
|
# ? Jun 12, 2018 05:53 |
|
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:
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.
|
# ? Jun 12, 2018 06:51 |
|
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 |
# ? Jun 12, 2018 12:40 |
|
Foxfire_ posted:It's a bad policy result, but I'm not sure it's a bad ruling. 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.
|
# ? Jun 12, 2018 12:49 |
|
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.
|
# ? Jun 12, 2018 13:04 |
|
|
# ? May 28, 2024 03:40 |
|
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.
|
# ? Jun 12, 2018 13:06 |