Page 5 of 21 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 204
Thanks Tree82Thanks

Thread: Supreme Court: States can purge voters who don't vote or respond to warnings,

  1. #41
    Veteran Member bajisima's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    45,490
    Thanks
    27564

    From
    New Hampshire
    Quote Originally Posted by the watchman View Post
    in Cali you can still vote. I have to check the specifics again. But, if memory serves, they don't just take you off the list.
    I bet they eventually do. Some states are every 10 years, others are 25 but most do have a time limit. Otherwise if nobody ever got taken off it would be a monster of a list and take forever to get through on election day.

  2. #42
    Member Claudius the God's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    2,601
    Thanks
    2040

    From
    California
    Quote Originally Posted by bajisima View Post
    Didnt GW Bush propose that? I seem to recall that being in the negotiations concerning the Patriot Act. A national ID (real ID)card that could act as a voting ID, a personal ID and a card for all sorts of govt things like Medicare, VA etc. All info could be put on a magnetic strip on the back. ACLU went nuts saying it was awful and could be used to track people.
    I don't remember but if it did happen, it was pre-facebook and zillions of iphones ago. The cat is out of the bag now, worrying about tracking folks is kind of silly at this point. I have always wanted a national ID card and it should be our SS card. Make it blue for citizens, green for legal aliens. Clean up the SS database and make registration automatic at age 17. This is not that hard to do folks and it would solve a ton of problems. If the ACLU doesnt like it, they can take it to court. I cannot see how it would be illegal to have a national ID.

  3. #43
    Veteran Member bajisima's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    45,490
    Thanks
    27564

    From
    New Hampshire
    Quote Originally Posted by Claudius the God View Post
    I don't remember but if it did happen, it was pre-facebook and zillions of iphones ago. The cat is out of the bag now, worrying about tracking folks is kind of silly at this point. I have always wanted a national ID card and it should be our SS card. Make it blue for citizens, green for legal aliens. Clean up the SS database and make registration automatic at age 17. This is not that hard to do folks and it would solve a ton of problems. If the ACLU doesnt like it, they can take it to court. I cannot see how it would be illegal to have a national ID.
    I cant recall exactly which countries, but several do this. A national card for voting, healthcare, retirement etc. One card fits all. Have even heard nowadays with technology, almost anything can be put on the strip on the back so conceivably it could be for driving as well. But again in the US voting is a state affair and not federal, there are no federal elections and I dont think we could do one without an amendment.
    Thanks from Claudius the God

  4. #44
    Moderator HayJenn's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    52,640
    Thanks
    40511

    From
    CA
    From Rick Hansen - and election expert and teaches at UCI



    Here's the Ohio voter purge decision: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...-1432_7j8b.pdf
    A 5-4 decision along ideological/party lines, making it easier for states to purge voter names from the polls, and raising risk of inadvertent disenfanchisement

    https://twitter.com/rickhasen/status...76514306523136

    And his article on this decision


    The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a controversial Ohio voter purge law which allows the state to begin the process of removing voters from the rolls based upon their failure to vote in a single election. No doubt other Republican states will follow suit and adopt Ohio’s procedures, leading to the removal of a disproportionate number of minority, low-income, and veteran voters from the list of eligible voters. It is an unfortunate decision, but Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s lone dissent provides two paths forward to mount new attacks on these voter suppressive laws based on their discriminatory impact. Unlike most other advanced democracies, our national government does not maintain a list of all eligible voters. Instead, American voting rolls are maintained on the state and county level. Voter rolls include the names of formerly eligible voters who have moved or died, and states need to have some way of removing those voters from the rolls without removing the names of eligible voters.

    In 1993, Congress passed the National Voter Registration Act—the so-called “Motor Voter” law because it required states to offer voter registration in a number of places, including at department of motor vehicles offices. One of the key provisions of the law limits the ability of states to remove voters from the voting rolls “by reason of the person’s failure to vote.” It lists a permissible process for notifying voters who may no longer be eligible before they may be removed from the rolls. The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (“HAVA”), passed after the voting troubles of the 2000 presidential election, included provisions clarifying the process for removing possibly ineligible voters. It says, among other things, that “no registrant may be removed solely by reason of a failure to vote.” The Court’s opinion in Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute raised a close question of statutory interpretation over whether Ohio’s voter purge law violated the Motor Voter law and HAVA by removing voters solely based on their failure to vote. Ohio is the only state to start the process for removing a voter based solely on the voter’s failure to vote in a two-year period.

    Whether Alito or Breyer had the stronger analysis of the interplay of the statutory provisions is unclear to me, but both opinions said little about the key political issue underlying the case, an issue Justice Sotomayor flagged in her separate dissent. After noting that Congress passed the Motor Voter law in light of a history of using restrictive registration and purge rules to suppress the vote, the Justice pointed to evidence showing that the process “has disproportionately affected minority, low-income, disabled, and veteran voters.” She noted evidence that in Hamilton County, Ohio, “African-American-majority neighborhoods in downtown Cincinnati had 10% of their voters removed due to inactivity” since 2012, as “compared to only 4% of voters in a suburban, majority-white neighborhood.” She also cited amicus briefs explaining “at length how low voter turnout rates, language-access problems, mail delivery issues, inflexible work schedules, and transportation issues, among other obstacles, make it more difficult for many minority, low-income, disabled, homeless, and veteran voters to cast a ballot or return a notice, rendering them particularly vulnerable to unwarranted removal under” Ohio’s process.

    Justice Sotomayor pointed out that another provision of the Motor Voter law requires that any removal program “be uniform, nondiscriminatory, and in compliance with the Voting Rights Act,” and this part of the law provides a potential path forward. As more states enact laws like Ohio’s, it will become further apparent that these laws have discriminatory effects.

    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...urge-laws.html
    Thanks from Panzareta

  5. #45
    "Mr. Original". the watchman's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    81,397
    Thanks
    43900

    From
    becoming more and more
    Quote Originally Posted by bajisima View Post
    I bet they eventually do. Some states are every 10 years, others are 25 but most do have a time limit. Otherwise if nobody ever got taken off it would be a monster of a list and take forever to get through on election day.
    looked it up...California is not allowed to take them off the list. They can classify the registration as inactive. But, they can't cancel it. It's classified inactive if they send out a notice and it's returned as undeliverables. https://www.dailyrepublic.com/all-dr...p-in-progress/

  6. #46
    Veteran Member MaryAnne's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    49,729
    Thanks
    35462

    From
    Englewood,Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    This isn't a terrible decision. If states want to aggressively clean up their voter rolls, and take reasonable precautions and spaces of time to do so, that's their decision.

    I'm much less concerned about this than I am requiring things like birth certificates/passports to register, and strict photo ID at the polls.
    Honestly,Ohio has required ID at the Polls ever since I can remember. You can show a Utility bill, Drivers License.

    This is honestly not a big deal. I am sure people can fill out a Provisional Ballot. But anyone not voting for 3 years means they really do not care about voting. And people die.

    More important in Ohio is that we voted for an unbiased panel instead of parties in charge of Redistricting.
    Thanks from bajisima and pragmatic

  7. #47
    Veteran Member MaryAnne's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    49,729
    Thanks
    35462

    From
    Englewood,Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by bajisima View Post
    Most states have always done this. If you miss two or three presidential elections, one is taken off the list. Also there is software used to crosscheck voter rolls from one state to the other. So if you move, they can remove you from one so you arent on two rolls at the same time. Decent ruling. States get final say in how they allow voting to happen.
    This is a fuss about nothing.
    Thanks from bajisima

  8. #48
    Veteran Member bajisima's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    45,490
    Thanks
    27564

    From
    New Hampshire
    Quote Originally Posted by MaryAnne View Post
    This is a fuss about nothing.
    Yea I never understood it. We always had ID, one always needed a birth certificate or something to verify age and ID to vote or register. Some states use voter cards to vote and thats their ID but others have nothing so they needed one.

  9. #49
    Civis americanus borealis Singularity's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    27,038
    Thanks
    18250

    From
    Kansas
    Quote Originally Posted by MaryAnne View Post
    Honestly,Ohio has required ID at the Polls ever since I can remember. You can show a Utility bill, Drivers License.

    This is honestly not a big deal. I am sure people can fill out a Provisional Ballot. But anyone not voting for 3 years means they really do not care about voting. And people die.

    More important in Ohio is that we voted for an unbiased panel instead of parties in charge of Redistricting.
    The standard should be: Anyone who wants to register to vote can register. Put your name and address on the form, online or mail it in, you're good, including on election day.

    And, anyone who wants to vote can do so, with reasonable effort to prove their identity. Anyone else votes provisionally after signing a statement subject to perjury.

    "Reasonable" should involve either any government-issued photo ID, social security card, tax returns, utility bills, or private ID showing name, address and photo.

    No one should be turned away, having not been allowed to vote at all. Ever. The provisional ballot canvas can handle discrepancies, not poll workers.

  10. #50
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    12,853
    Thanks
    3131

    From
    California
    Quote Originally Posted by Think for myself View Post
    Total fail. Not what was claimed. Save the smarmy insults.
    My good man,

    Did you not ask when was the last time 2% more people were registered to vote than there were people in a precinct?

    Did I not give you that information?

Page 5 of 21 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 17th November 2014, 04:48 AM
  2. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 2nd November 2013, 07:43 AM
  3. The Supreme Court of the United States. Booooooooooooo!
    By boontito in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 30th June 2012, 04:37 PM
  4. Supreme Court to Obama: Respond about Birth Certificate by Dec 1st.
    By Confederate in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 166
    Last Post: 1st December 2008, 11:04 AM
  5. Supreme Court says states can demand photo ID for voting
    By Stinger in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 29th April 2008, 03:44 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed