Page 1 of 21 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 204
Thanks Tree82Thanks

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

  1. #1
    "Mr. Original". the watchman's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    81,400
    Thanks
    43908

    From
    becoming more and more

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

    WASHINGTON -- Failing to vote can lead to getting knocked off voter registration rolls, a divided Supreme Court ruled Monday in a decision that likely will help Republicans and harm Democrats.

    The court's conservative majority ruled 5-4 that Ohio did not violate federal laws by purging voters who don't vote and fail to return notices confirming their residency. Civil rights groups had challenged the state for having the strictest method of purging voters in the nation.
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ote/587316002/

    the operatives words being "conservative majority". How do the figure this is constitutional? This is a big deal. And yet another example of how elections have consequences.

  2. #2
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    12,858
    Thanks
    3132

    From
    California
    Quote Originally Posted by the watchman View Post
    WASHINGTON -- Failing to vote can lead to getting knocked off voter registration rolls, a divided Supreme Court ruled Monday in a decision that likely will help Republicans and harm Democrats.

    The court's conservative majority ruled 5-4 that Ohio did not violate federal laws by purging voters who don't vote and fail to return notices confirming their residency. Civil rights groups had challenged the state for having the strictest method of purging voters in the nation.
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ote/587316002/

    the operatives words being "conservative majority". How do the figure this is constitutional? This is a big deal. And yet another example of how elections have consequences.
    The Watchman,

    Makes sense. Makes you wonder what goes through the minds of the whack jobs on the court in the minority.
    Thanks from excalibur

  3. #3
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    62,680
    Thanks
    31367

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by the watchman View Post
    How do the figure this is constitutional?
    How do you figure it is not?
    Thanks from pragmatic

  4. #4
    RNG
    RNG is offline
    Senior Member RNG's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    10,807
    Thanks
    6379

    From
    Between everywhere

    SC rules allowing deletion from voters list

    This is, IMO a really big, really rotten deal.

    Thanks from Friday13

  5. #5
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    12,858
    Thanks
    3132

    From
    California
    Quote Originally Posted by RNG View Post
    This is, IMO a really big, really rotten deal.

    Mr. RNG,

    I can't see why you, nor anybody else would have a problem with this. If they have not voted in 3 consecutive elections, it means either they have no interest in participating in the electoral process, or most likely, they have moved and are no longer in that jurisdiction and have probably re-registered in another place.

  6. #6
    Senior Member BoiseBo's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2013
    Posts
    10,497
    Thanks
    8385

    From
    Boise, ID
    Oh great, and as we all know - Republicans won't abuse the holy hell out of this decision.

    At least a dozen other politically conservative states said they would adopt a similar practice if Ohio prevailed, as a way of keeping their voter registration lists accurate and up to date.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...ration-n873226
    Thanks from Friday13 and Dragonfly5

  7. #7
    Veteran Member Devil505's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    64,023
    Thanks
    20714

    From
    Mass and Florida
    Quote Originally Posted by Kallie Knoetze View Post
    Mr. RNG,

    I can't see why you, nor anybody else would have a problem with this.
    How about those who were prevented from voting by intentionally racist laws/procedures like we have seen the GOP use for decades?
    Thanks from Friday13 and BoiseBo

  8. #8
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    12,858
    Thanks
    3132

    From
    California
    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    How about those who were prevented from voting by intentionally racist laws/procedures like we have seen the GOP use for decades?
    Mr. Devil,

    Those imaginary voters only exist in your mind.
    Thanks from Bronwyn

  9. #9
    "Mr. Original". the watchman's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    81,400
    Thanks
    43908

    From
    becoming more and more
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    How do you figure it is not?
    let's start with the fact that it was a 5 - 4 vote with the conservatives winning out because they're in the majority. Then, let's move on to the dissenting opinions, penned by Breyer
    Justice Stephen Breyer penned an 18-page dissent for the liberal wing of the court, marking the sixth time this term they have dissented as a bloc. Rather than focusing on inaccurate voter rolls, he recited the history of literacy tests, poll taxes and other restrictions he said were designed to "keep certain groups of citizens from voting."

    Breyer noted that most voters simply ignore the warning notices, leaving their failure to vote as the principal cause for being purged from the rolls. The number who don't vote and don't return notices far exceeds the number who actually have moved, he said.

    "The streets of Ohio's cities are not filled with moving vans; nor has Cleveland become the nation's residential moving companies' headquarters," Breyer said. Rather, Ohio's process "erects needless hurdles to voting of the kind Congress sought to eliminate."

  10. #10
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    12,858
    Thanks
    3132

    From
    California
    Quote Originally Posted by the watchman View Post
    let's start with the fact that it was a 5 - 4 vote with the conservatives winning out because they're in the majority. Then, let's move on to the dissenting opinions, penned by Breyer
    The Watchman,

    Just because 4 justices are whack jobs, how do you figure it isn't constitutional? I mean, by definition, if the SCOUS says it is constitutional, it is constitutional.
    Thanks from Bronwyn

Page 1 of 21 12311 ... 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