mdemone posted:

You must have missed Syzygy Stardust on the previous page saying that black people being removed from voter rolls at a higher rate than white people, is "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."

Dead Reckoning posted:

So this theoretical voter cares enough about an upcoming election that they're going to vote for the first time in over six years, but not enough to check that they're registered to vote?

VitalSigns posted:

It's not theoretical it actually happened, I provided you a link to a Navy vet this happened to.

And yes, most people don't just assume that they got deregistered at some point and check months before the election just in case, they go to the polling place like they did the last time they voted.

VitalSigns posted:

*assuming you know you were de-registered, and as Breyer covered in his dissent, it is overwhelmingly likely that people will not since they're striking many times the number of voters a year as there are people who actually move outside their country.

SickZip posted:

then registrations of Black Americans will be purged at a higher rate. This does not mean that Black Americans are prevented from voting at a higher rate however.

SickZip posted:

Black Americans have lower home ownership and move more often. If a racially neutral X% of moves result in a voter registration status not being updated, then registrations of Black Americans will be purged at a higher rate. This does not mean that Black Americans are prevented from voting at a higher rate however. This would be true even if the criteria worked perfectly and not a single actual person was prevented from voting.

SickZip posted:

It is extremely trivial to check your voting registration in Ohio. It is a sub 5 minute process to verify your registration

SickZip posted:

It is extremely trivial to check your voting registration in Ohio. It is a sub 5 minute process to verify your registration

Jethro posted:

Voting can be a pain in the butt. Maybe someone doesn't bother taking time off of work to vote in midterms or local elections because they live in a highly partisan district where their individual vote is unlikely to make a difference, but their vote could matter in a presidential election because they live in a swing state so they usually make the effort every four years. Well, if they missed the postcard and then something unexpectedly comes up on election day in one presidential year, then they're purged before the next one with the only additional notice being "sorry, you can't vote today, you're not registered."

qkkl posted:

Would this system prevent voters registered in two places from voting twice?

1. When a person registers to vote, their name, social security number, and other personal identifiable information is hashed into an irreversible key.
2. This key is then put in a database that can be accessed from anywhere in the US online. Even if the database is hacked the attackers don't get any useful information because personal identifiable information can't be extracted from the keys.
3. When counting votes, one key can only vote once.

qkkl posted:

Would this system prevent voters registered in two places from voting twice?

1. When a person registers to vote, their name, social security number, and other personal identifiable information is hashed into an irreversible key.
2. This key is then put in a database that can be accessed from anywhere in the US online. Even if the database is hacked the attackers don't get any useful information because personal identifiable information can't be extracted from the keys.
3. When counting votes, one key can only vote once.

mdemone posted:

You must have missed Syzygy Stardust on the previous page saying that black people being removed from voter rolls at a higher rate than white people, is "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."

Dead Reckoning posted:

So this theoretical voter cares enough about an upcoming election that they're going to vote for the first time in over six years, but not enough to check that they're registered to vote? Sometimes exercising your rights requires you to make the bare minimum of contact with the government. We don't have a problem with jailing people who ignore certain government letters, after all.

mdemone posted:

Giving everybody the franchise just really seems like it's going too far for you, so why don't you just describe your ideal system of determining who gets to vote?

VitalSigns posted:

thanks for your dumb anti-democracy opinions.

VitalSigns posted:

And just lol at liberals jumping on board with GOP voter suppression of Democrats' own voter base because the desire to win elections is dwarfed by their contempt for the proles.

Dead Reckoning posted:

I really want to hear about these court cases from the 18th and 19th centuries holding that there is no individual right to own a firearm.

ulmont posted:

By definition, non-voters aren't the voter base.

Dead Reckoning posted:

This is the case for residents of New York City, but for some reason you don't think that their constitutional right is unduly burdened.

ulmont posted:

By definition, non-voters aren't the voter base.

Admiral Ray posted:

DR we've never talked about this, ever, so nice job constructing both sides of the conversation. Personally I think gun rights are very weird because in order to exercise the right you have to spend money. So long as they remain an enumerated right I'd prefer a gun be handed out with voter registration and prefer people to have to drill with them in an organized local/state unit.

Admiral Ray posted:

DR we've never talked about this, ever, so nice job constructing both sides of the conversation. Personally I think gun rights are very weird because in order to exercise the right you have to spend money. So long as they remain an enumerated right I'd prefer a gun be handed out with voter registration and prefer people to have to drill with them in an organized local/state unit.

Nevvy Z posted:

When you have to get this stupidly pedantic it's pretty clear you lost the real argument

VitalSigns posted:

We have documented cases of people trying to vote

mdemone posted:

Now there's a thought that'll fester.

ulmont posted:

I appreciate your attempt to convince me that this opinion should raise some concern.


By definition, non-voters aren't the voter base.

mdemone posted:

Read Breyer's dissent. He probably has a better handle on this than you do.

SickZip posted:

I got to the part where he was going on about how only 4% of voters move counties in a given year while ignoring that Ohio was sending out notices in response to 2 years of inactivity (ie 8% of voters are going to have moved counties in that timeframe) and also that moving counties is not the only reason for inactivity and non-response (an additional 2% of voters will have died in that 2 year period for instance).

mdemone posted:

Semantics over the word "prevent".

Devor posted:

(Your numbers still don't add up to the number of people Ohio is tagging as secret movers/zombies)

SickZip posted:

It's not semantics.

What matters is people prevented from voting, not registrations purged from the voting rolls in a county. A person can be purged from the rolls in one county can be simultaneously registered and voting in another county. Don't conflate the 2 and imagine every voter purged is a person disenfranchised.

Devor posted:

Take that, people trying to vote! You just got proved stupid!

(Your numbers still don't add up to the number of people Ohio is tagging as secret movers/zombies)

SickZip posted:

There's no reason it should. There's a reason why Ohio gives it 4 more years before they take any action

Devor posted:

The reason why Ohio gives it 4 more years before they take any action is because that time period is explicitly required by federal law before someone can be removed from voter rolls for a change of address

If you don't think they would reduce or eliminate that waiting period if they could, I have a Russian Trump property for you to invest in

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.

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

Dead Reckoning posted:

moths posted:

This encroaching infringement is a dedicated effort to dissolve your rights - by a lovely, dying, unpopular political party who would prefer to erode democracy rather than compete in it.

Mr. Nice! posted:

You are right, though, that if people voted more this wouldn't be an issue, but at the same time we have one major party in the country working constantly to prevent people that vote against them from voting at all.

VitalSigns posted:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/purged-ohio-s-voter-rolls-navy-vet-has-his-day-n832536.

Raldikuk posted:

The law clearly states that to remove based on change of address it has to come from the Post Office that the person moved outside of their current voting district. If they haven't the state is supposed to update the person's address and notify them. This is why Breyer goes into the discussion of how many people move etc; Ohio is basically saying over a million people moved outside of their voting district and the facts don't support that conclusion.

This feels like the VRA ruling where SCOTUS ignores the text of the law (in the VRA case a constitutional amendment, so especially egregious) in order to forward its dismantling of voter protections.