|
Is there a stated rationale as to why voters need to be purged at all? Is having a database of name of 14 million people really that much harder to deal with than a database of 13 million? Do we really need a signed statement from republican politicians to admit that this is being done for partisan reasons?
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 20:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 22:22 |
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Is there a stated rationale as to why voters need to be purged at all? Is having a database of name of 14 million people really that much harder to deal with than a database of 13 million? quote:The purposes of this Act are— Ron Jeremy posted:Do we really need a signed statement from republican politicians to admit that this is being done for partisan reasons? Ohio's 1851 constitution provided for - and still provides for today, except that it has been superseded by the NVRA - the removal of anyone who doesn't vote for four years: quote:Article V: Elective Franchise I doubt the Ohio constitution of 1851 set that up with an eye towards partisan advantage in 2018.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 20:28
|
|
|
ulmont posted:For compliance with the NVRA of 1993 (the law being interpreted in this case), for example. Actually they set that up with an eye towards suppressing poor voters, which comes to the same thing, both then and now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 20:31
|
|
|
exploded mummy posted:It doesn't say that. The may there is about if states can start a purge on change of address. They are nor required to hence no shall but if they decide to do so (may) then they have to follow that process. Anything done outside if that process is forbidden. Edit: by is forbidden i mean by the law as written. Obviously SCOTUS shat all over that just like the VRA
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 20:40
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:The may there is about if states can start a purge on change of address. They are nor required to hence no shall but if they decide to do so (may) then they have to follow that process. Anything done outside if that process is forbidden. They are required to remove voters who moved per 52 U.S. Code § 20507 (a)(4)(B). quote:(a)In general In the administration of voter registration for elections for Federal office, each State shall...conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters by reason of... a change in the residence of the registrant, in accordance with subsections (b), (c), and (d); Section (c) provides guidance on how it may be acceptably run, but is not how it must be run.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 21:00
|
|
|
ulmont posted:I doubt the Ohio constitution of 1851 set that up with an eye towards partisan advantage in 2018. Hm yes there wasn't any voter suppression in the perfect democracy of *checks notes* ....errm 1851 USA VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Jun 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 22:15
|
|
|
twodot posted:Purging rolls for inactivity is dumb because it costs money and creates approximately 0 benefit, but arguing it's bad because voting is a fundamental right is missing a step. If voting is such a fundamental right, then the whole concept of voter registration shouldn't exist, non-citizens should be able to vote, I don't have to be a 18+ year old citizen who has filled out the appropriate governmental form to have protection against unreasonable search and seizure. This is a bad argument because the unlike the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure, the constitution explicitly permits restriction of the right to vote based on age and citizenship status but it does not permit restriction of the right to vote based on proper respect for the postal service or w/e personal character is demonstrated by diligently scanning junk mail for "we're going to suspend your right to vote" postcards. I do agree that the concept of voter registration should not exist, everyone should be automatically registered on their 18th birthday, and if you haven't kept your address up to date you should be able to update it on election day when you go to vote in your new precinct, good suggestions I guess? A lot of other countries do it, the only reason we don't is a legacy from a time when the franchise was restricted to property-owning white men and based on the arguments itt apparently a ton of Americans still have it ingrained in their cultural consciousness that people they look down on don't deserve the vote.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 22:19
|
|
|
Are people in Ohio inundated with some extreme volume of junk mail that a postcard from county elections can easily get lost in the shuffle? Is the thing designed to look like junk so they throw it out or something? Sorting your mail and reading & acting on anything important is the most basic how-to-function-in-society poo poo. There being consequences for failing to do so is not at all unreasonable. It's not a punishment, it's living in a causal universe. Personally there should probably be like annual notices leading up to the 6th year cull just to guard against postal worker incompetence and other general poo poo happens type issues, but that wasn't the question, it was "does this process meet the legal bare minimums", which it does.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 22:44
|
|
|
if you aren;t expecting mail from the government you're just going to assume it's pretty much "junk". like i toss out my tax bill since i don't pay it directly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 22:45
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Is there a stated rationale as to why voters need to be purged at all? Is having a database of name of 14 million people really that much harder to deal with than a database of 13 million?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 23:20
|
|
|
Javid posted:Are people in Ohio inundated with some extreme volume of junk mail that a postcard from county elections can easily get lost in the shuffle? Is the thing designed to look like junk so they throw it out or something? Well the state is striking many times the number of voters from the rolls as there are likely to be people moving across country lines, so it seems hurfdurf personal responsibility is not an adequate explanation for how this is possible. Like do you get how voter suppression works now that poll taxes or outright bans of race/sex are unconstitutional? You put a bunch of annoyances and hoops to jump through in the way, which statistically impacts poor (and thus, because America, black) people more, which affects close elections on the margins. You know, the exact same thing the GOP does to women who want abortions or to people who want to sign up for Medicaid. Yes any given restriction can be handwaved away with some nagging schoolmarming like "well that will teach you to scan every postcard, the mail is important u know" or "well just borrow the car an take one extra-long lunch to get that voter ID" or "well if you really cared about voting you'd have stayed in that 4 hour line because we restricted the number of polling places in your neighborhood", the point isn't that no one can vote, the point is to introduce a myriad of points of failure where one fuckup will take away your right to vote which in aggregate will reduce turnout among the people more vulnerable to those points of failure (ie the poor who have less time and money to spend jumping through hoops to vote). Jesus H Christ, your party just lost an election despite having more votes because the GOP used its control of critical swing state governments to suppress the vote by a few percent and tip the Electoral College their way, and here you are buying into the arguments that are loving you at the ballot box because of the dopamine rush of getting to engage in some sneering elitism toward the poor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 23:29
|
|
|
Javid posted:Are people in Ohio inundated with some extreme volume of junk mail that a postcard from county elections can easily get lost in the shuffle? Is the thing designed to look like junk so they throw it out or something? if you've moved in the last five years i promise there's at least one state or federal database that still has your old address in it. i actively keep up with that poo poo and it doesn't matter, there's too many systems and none of them talk to each other. i work with an address database that is actively updated from about half a dozen sources including the post office and dmv and we still can't track down about a quarter of the people we're trying to talk to. hell, a hospital sent a bill to my parents because the billing system had an address from ten years ago in it and the current address i put on the intake paperwork was, idk, ignored? and this is the system you trust to tell you if people should be allowed to vote???
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 23:37
|
|
|
ijzer posted:and this is the system you trust to tell you if people should be allowed to vote??? Voting one time in six years is all you need to do to stay on the Ohio rolls. A voter can completely ignore the postcard and just go vote, supposedly the right they want to maintain.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 23:46
|
|
|
My name is still on the voting rolls of my home state. My mom makes the same joke every election to the official about being able to vote for me because she knows how I would vote. I've voted in California in every election since moving here. There's almost zero downside to my name being left on that voter roll despite my name "needing" to be purged for reasons. On the other hand, there are many instances of people not voting who otherwise would have had their name not been purged.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 23:47
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Voting one time in six years is all you need to do to stay on the Ohio rolls. A voter can completely ignore the postcard and just go vote, supposedly the right they want to maintain. Missing a single presidential election gets you kicked off before the next one comes around, that's really not enough to assume someone doesn't want to maintain the right to vote, even if that assumption were a good reason to disenfranchise someone, which it isn't. At least I'll know which idiot to blame when Republicans voter-suppress their way to their next EC win, so silver linings  (you)
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 00:16
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:Ohio is basically saying over a million people moved outside of their voting district and the facts don't support that conclusion. Can't blame people for wanting to get the gently caress out of Ohio
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 00:21
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:Can't blame people for wanting to get the gently caress out of Ohio Why the hell do you think more astronauts are from Ohio than anywhere else
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 02:22
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Missing a single presidential election gets you kicked off before the next one comes around, that's really not enough to assume someone doesn't want to maintain the right to vote, even if that assumption were a good reason to disenfranchise someone, which it isn't. No it doesnt. Are you familiar with how many presidential elections are in a 6 year period?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 02:33
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/b_fung/status/1006638924020830209 Future SCOTUS material
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 02:35
|
|
|
SickZip posted:No it doesnt. Are you familiar with how many presidential elections are in a 6 year period? Let's say I vote in 2008. I don't vote in 2012. Now I can't vote next time I want to in 2016. Idiot
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 02:37
|
|
|
Piell posted:Let's say I vote in 2008. I don't vote in 2012. Now I can't vote next time I want to in 2016. If you dont vote in 2012, they send you a notice. If you dont answer, youre still eligible to vote in 2016 since they allow 4 years to pass before they decertify.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 02:57
|
|
|
e: I’m not having this bodybuilder forums argument.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 03:08
|
|
|
SickZip posted:If you dont vote in 2012, they send you a notice. If you dont answer, youre still eligible to vote in 2016 since they allow 4 years to pass before they decertify. Midterm elections exist
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 03:09
|
|
|
SickZip posted:If you dont vote in 2012, they send you a notice. If you dont answer, youre still eligible to vote in 2016 since they allow 4 years to pass before they decertify. Ha, imagine not even being tangentially aware of midterm elections before pounding your way in here to defend disenfranchisement
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 03:11
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:e: I’m not having this bodybuilder forums argument. But that was the greatest forums argument of all time!
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 03:13
|
|
|
Piell posted:Midterm elections exist That doesnt change anything I said? Try reading closer
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 03:55
|
|
|
SickZip posted:If you dont vote in 2012, they send you a notice. If you dont answer, youre still eligible to vote in 2016 since they allow 4 years to pass before they decertify. You vote in 2008. They send you a notice in 2010 because you didn't vote for two years. You miss your first presidential election in 2012, you get purged in 2014, can't vote in 2016. A presidential-only voter like many Americans are gets disenfranchised after missing just one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 04:28
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:https://twitter.com/b_fung/status/1006638924020830209 Honestly I would have to be very thoroughly convinced through a large sum of evidence and a detailed explanation that anyone telling Session's DOJ to get hosed is anything but 100% correct and doing the unequivocally moral thing. As far as I know they were trying to block this merger just so they could give Fox News and other convervative propaganda outlets a competitive edge.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 04:47
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:e: I’m not having this bodybuilder forums argument.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 05:23
|
|
|
Breyer's dissent does suggest one avenue that makes Ohio's procedure violate NVRA that I didn't think of. Breyer argues that (a)(4) [the provision that requires states to have a program to purge voter rolls] says "reasonable effort" and using lack-of-voting to trigger removal isn't reasonable because of the overwhelming evidence that most people who don't vote haven't moved. But it's not that convincing to me since it's saying states must make a "reasonable effort" to remove people (saying how many resources the state has to put into maintaining accurate rolls) vs saying that the triggering criteria have to be reasonably likely to select people who have moved and no one else. The rest of the dissent is disappointingly bad. He talks a lot about (d) being a 'Confirmation Procedure' for removing someone from the rolls after some other process has identified them, but I don't think the text supports that. It's titled 'Removal of names from voting rolls' and the only place 'confirm' ever appears is in subsection (d)(1)(A) saying that it is acceptable to remove someone after they confirm in writing that they've moved. (d)(1)(B) is the part about removing someone who doesn't reply to a notice and hasn't voted in two elections and doesn't have the confirm language. (d)(1) is built as saying you can remove people if either (d)(1)(A) or (d)(1)(B) apply Summarizing my interpretation of it: (a)(4): States must have a program to purge voter rolls that complies with (b), (c), and (d) (b)(2): States may not remove someone because of a failure to vote, except as allowed by (c) and (d) (c)(1): Using postal change of addresses followed by the notice in (d)(2) meets the obligation from (a)(4). Other hypothetical programs also meet this obligation [it's got a may in front of it, not a shall] (d)(1): States may never remove someone unless they either confirm they've moved, or don't reply to a notice plus don't vote for 2 post-notice elections (d)(2): Describes what has to be on the notice I think (d)(1) sets a floor for the minimum procedures states have to do and (c)(1) creates a safe harbor so states don't have to guess what 'reasonable effort' to maintain voter rolls means. It leaves open a program that is above the (d)(1) floor that triggers off of something else like Ohio's. Ohio's procedure is bad policy, but NVRA doesn't seem like it forbids it and none of the respondants in the case argued that NVRA's floor for removal violated due process/equal protection.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 07:16
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:(b)(2): States may not remove someone because of a failure to vote, except as allowed by (c) and (d) I think you kind of elide over the actual text of (b)(2) (emphasis mine) quote:(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— It's saying Don't Use Nonvoting to Disenfranchise BUT, as part of the confirmation process in (d) - you have to check to see if they've voted, in order to protect voters! This seems contradictory! But the law in (b) is saying Don't Use Nonvoting To Screw People. The law in (d) is saying, here's how you make sure you're only disenrolling the right people: e.g. You Gotta Check For Nonvoting to Protect People. This decision was 5-4, so in a non-Trump world, SCOTUS would likely have determined that the law is what the dissent says. I recognize that the authoritarian side of the court decided that they're okay with the results, and it helps their team win, so came up with the justification. But separate from the question of law, all the previous arguments about this being bad public policy still apply.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 12:50
|
|
|
Personally I think we're all missing the big win here, and I thank Dead Reckoning for agreeing to this modest proposal: If you don't buy a gun in two years, we send you a postcard making sure you're still interested in buying a gun. If you don't respond, and don't buy another gun within 4 years, we revoke your right to buy them. It's clearly a SCOTUS okeyed system for making sure only the right people can buy and own weapons. I'm sure DR et al won't complain when California institutes this completely fair system.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 20:14
|
|
|
That would be about 80000% less of a pain in the dick than California already makes it to buy a gun, so if that's a straight trade it's a good deal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 20:31
|
|
|
Javid posted:That would be about 80000% less of a pain in the dick than California already makes it to buy a gun, so if that's a straight trade it's a good deal. I'm sorry, at what point did Ohio scrap all other voting laws and reduce it down to this? No, it's an additional, trifiling requirement that clearly in no way infringes on anyone's constitutional right. All they have to do is never miss a piece of junk mail ever. That's not too much to ask.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 20:34
|
|
|
Once you're registered you have to respond to one (1) postcard or vote twice (2x) per calendar decade in order to not have to register again. What hoops am I missing here?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
Harik posted:Personally I think we're all missing the big win here, and I thank Dead Reckoning for agreeing to this modest proposal: That wouldn't really have an impact on me in Iowa. You need a permit to buy a handgun here, and they expire after just 1 year. Its trivially easy to get a new permit after it expires though, you just show up at the Sheriff's office, give them some money, fill out a form, and you are free to buy another arsenal for up to one year.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 20:39
|
|
|
Javid posted:Once you're registered you have to respond to one (1) postcard or vote twice (2x) per calendar decade in order to not have to register again. What hoops am I missing here? you are missing the fact that there is literally not a single reason to put "hoops" in front of anyone's right to participate in a democracy by voting. you are missing the fact that any "hoop" will inevitably be misused by the GOP to deny people of color the franchise. you are missing the "hoop" that those postcards will mysteriously be lost and the voters who put them in the mail will be turned away at the voting booth. you are missing the "hoop" that talking about attempts to curtail people's right to vote in a democracy is not a loving "hoop" you brain genius.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 20:42
|
|
|
the problem with discussing voter supression with people who are, like javid, trying to pretend it's no big deal is that they're usually looking to invert the burden of proof all adult citizens have or should have the right to vote in every election of the jurisdictions they live in. that's the well-understood premise of a democracy, we have thrown out the "men only" "wealthy only" though, unfortunately, we have not codified that into law. that is the rule. every time someone wants to abridge that rule, they need to justify it. there is no compelling justification for this nonsense - "oh you didn't vote often enough? guess you just don't want the franchise enough" is not a legitimate justification. it is the justification of someone who wants to avoid giving voting rights to everyone, because they don't actually believe in democracy. there is no end aside from voter suppression sought by this law. that "oh, well it's not very effective at blocking all poor people" isn't a defense. there is no positive benefit whatsoever to this law. nothing is improved in the democratic process. no necessary technical aims are met. people saying it's a minimal infringement on the right to vote never get around to justifying that infringement. it will disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters. the various openly racist posters that have been posting in this thread see that as the end in itself. some people who aren't racist but just didn't fully think it through by into that framing. but that framing is nonsense. it's disenfranchising people for no benefit whatsoever: a pure effort to rig elections. there is nothing gained by getting into discussions if it's 0.5% or 1% or what because any of those are bad with zero public benefit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 20:45
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:that is the rule. every time someone wants to abridge that rule, they need to justify it. I look forward to the constitutional rights absolutist squad being all up in this thread the next time the SC rules on some lovely state's lovely restrictions on 2a, then! If we apply this logic to all rights I'm entirely on board, but right now we don't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 21:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 22:22 |
|
|
Javid posted:Once you're registered you have to respond to one (1) postcard or vote twice (2x) per calendar decade in order to not have to register again. What hoops am I missing here? Why not just send a single postcard to every voter every year which if they don't return before the registration deadline, they get purged and can't vote that year? It's just a postcard, should be easy right.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 21:05
|
|