U.S. top court backs Ohio voter purge; Democrats blast ruling

Via:  vic-eldred  •  6 months ago  •  73 comments

U.S. top court backs Ohio voter purge; Democrats blast ruling

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Image result for picture of supreme court building


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday revived Ohio’s contentious policy of purging infrequent voters from registration rolls in a ruling powered by the five conservative justices and denounced by liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor as an endorsement of the disenfranchisement of minority and low-income Americans.

n a 5-4 decision in the closely watched voting-rights case, the high court overturned a lower court’s ruling that Ohio’s policy violated a 1993 federal law enacted to make it easier to register to vote. All four liberal justices dissented, and top Democrats said the decision will boost what they called Republican voter-suppression efforts. But other states may now follow Ohio’s lead.

Voters purged from registration rolls who challenged the policy in the Republican-governed state argued that the practice illegally erased thousands of voters from registration rolls and disproportionately impacted racial minorities and poor people who tend to back Democratic candidates.

The state said the policy was needed to keep voting rolls current, removing people who have moved away or died.

Under Ohio’s policy, if registered voters miss voting for two years, they are sent registration confirmation notices. If they do not respond and do not vote over the following four years, they are purged.

“This decision is validation of Ohio’s efforts to clean up the voter rolls and now with the blessing (of the) nation’s highest court, it can serve as a model for other states to use,” Republican Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted said.




Five other states also remove voters from their registration lists for failure to vote. The challengers called Ohio’s policy the most aggressive.

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said the court was not deciding whether Ohio’s policy “is the ideal method for keeping its voting rolls up to date. The only question before us is whether it violates federal law. It does not.”

Many states over the decades had erected barriers to voting, sometimes targeting black voters. The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) among other provisions had forbade removing voters from registration lists for failing to vote.

In a dissenting opinion, Sotomayor said the ruling “ignores the history of voter suppression against which the NVRA was enacted and upholds a program that appears to further the very disenfranchisement of minority and low-income voters that Congress set out to eradicate.”





A 2016 Reuters analysis found roughly twice the rate of voter purging in Democratic-leaning neighborhoods in Ohio’s three largest counties as in Republican-leaning neighborhoods.

‘BLATANT UNFAIRNESS’


“Communities that are disproportionately affected by unnecessarily harsh registration laws should not tolerate efforts to marginalize their influence in the political process, nor should allies who recognize blatant unfairness stand idly by,” added Sotomayor, the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice.

The challengers criticized what they called Ohio’s “use it or lose it” policy that they said violated registered voters’ right to choose when to vote, noting that some voters do not cast a ballot when they do not support any of the candidates running.

Republican President Donald Trump’s administration backed Ohio, reversing the stance taken by Democratic former President Barack Obama’s administration against the policy, and welcomed the ruling. Democrats disagreed.

“Democracy suffers when laws make it harder for U.S. citizens to vote,” top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer said.





“This wrongly decided decision paves the way to mass disenfranchisement in Ohio and around the country,” top House of Representatives Democrat Nancy Pelosi added.

The challengers, represented by liberal advocacy group Demos and the American Civil Liberties Union, sued Husted in 2016 to end the policy. One of the lead plaintiffs was U.S. Navy veteran Larry Harmon, who was blocked from voting in a 2015 marijuana-legalization initiative.

“If states take today’s decision as a sign that they can be even more reckless and kick eligible voters off the rolls, we will fight back in the courts, the legislatures and with our community partners across the country,” Demos attorney Stuart Naifeh said.

The ACLU’s Dale Ho said the ruling “is not a green light to engage in wholesale purges of eligible voters without notice.”

Conservative advocacy groups praised the ruling.

“Leftists opposed to election integrity suffered a big defeat today. Frankly, this and their other assaults on clean election measures suggest the organized left and their politician allies want to be able to steal elections if necessary,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.

Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, in a dissent joined by the other liberal justices, said, “Using a registrant’s failure to vote is not a reasonable method for identifying voters whose registrations are likely invalid.” Since people tend not to send confirmation notices back to the government, it is not a reliable way to determine whether someone has moved away, Breyer added.

Ohio’s policy would have barred more than 7,500 people from voting in the 2016 presidential election had the lower court not blocked it, according to court papers.

For graphic on major cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, click: tmsnrt.rs/2Mjahov



Reporting by Andrew Chung; Additional reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham





Article is Locked

Vic Eldred
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    6 months ago

“Leftists opposed to election integrity suffered a big defeat today. Frankly, this and their other assaults on clean election measures suggest the organized left and their politician allies want to be able to steal elections if necessary,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.

 
 
MUVA
1.1  MUVA  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    6 months ago

Now how are they going to commit voter fraud.

 
 
XDm9mm
1.1.1  XDm9mm  replied to  MUVA @1.1    6 months ago

They'll need to move to California.

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  MUVA @1.1    6 months ago
Now how are they going to commit voter fraud.

Where is all this evidence of voter fraud? This is voter rolls being purged of eligible voters who may have moved or pied but there is no actual evidence of those voters casting ballots illegally. Just because you have more people on the rolls than you have eligible voters in a county doesn't mean those extra are actually voting.

This is just another attempt of Republicans to make it harder for the poor and minority voters who traditionally vote Democrat to have to re-register otherwise they lose their vote and voice. It has nothing to do with illegal voting or voter fraud as was proven in court in North Carolina and Texas.

"North Carolina legislators had requested data on voting patterns by race and, with that data in hand, drafted a law that would "target African-Americans with almost surgical precision," the court said.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/15/528457693/supreme-court-declines-republican-bid-to-revive-north-carolina-voter-id-law

"data also showed that black voters were more likely to make use of early voting — particularly the first seven days out of North Carolina's 17-day voting period. So lawmakers eliminated these seven days of voting."

"Thus, in what comes as close to a smoking gun as we are likely to see in modern times, the State’s very justification for a challenged statute hinges explicitly on race — specifically its concern that African Americans, who had overwhelmingly voted for Democrats, had too much access to the franchise," the judges write in their decision."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/29/the-smoking-gun-proving-north-carolina-republicans-tried-to-disenfranchise-black-voters/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6dd709a03cf2

Now that's clear evidence of voter fraud, committed by Republicans attempting to disenfranchise eligible voters that they have identified as likely Democrat voters. Those are the real pieces of shit trying to screw over free and fair elections in America all so they can increase their chances at a "win". Truly disgusting.

 
 
Greg Jones
1.1.3  Greg Jones  replied to  MUVA @1.1    6 months ago

The Democrats rely on fraudulent votes, and there is no voter suppression going on. If people really want to vote, they would find ways to keep their registration current.

 
 
Rmando
1.1.4  Rmando  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.2    6 months ago

So black voters are disenfranchised even though it's the exact same rules for white voters? I guess the Bush speech writers had it right when they talked about "the soft racism of low expectations".

 
 
BeastOfTheEast
1.1.5  BeastOfTheEast  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.2    6 months ago
This is just another attempt of Republicans to make it harder for the poor and minority voters who traditionally vote Democrat to have to re-register otherwise they lose their vote.
The left always makes that argument what they are really saying is poor and minority voters are too stupid to know how to register or re-register to vote.
Why is the left always saying the poor and minorities are stupid? That's the same as saying the white voter is more intelligent, that's sounds like racism.
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.2    6 months ago

Seems like if NC shortened their early voting days to 10, then the MAJORITY of black voters would vote within that timeframe.

You know---like EVERYONE ELSE!

 
 
Texan1211
1.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.2    6 months ago

In fact, it is IMPOSIBLE to eliminate the first 7 days of early voting.

Whenever early voting starts will be the first day.

 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
1.1.8  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.2    6 months ago
This is just another attempt of Republicans to make it harder for the poor and minority voters who traditionally vote Democrat to have to re-register otherwise they lose their vote and voice.

How dare they make everybody do the same thing.  

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.9  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.8    6 months ago
How dare they make everybody do the same thing.

What part of Republicans "requested data on voting patterns by race and, with that data in hand, drafted a law that would "target African-Americans with almost surgical precision,", do you not understand?

If black legislators were the majority able to write voting rules and they found that white voters were less likely to vote before 3:00 pm or that they didn't like to go to certain parts of town, so they drafted laws that targeted them making all polls close at 2:30 and put just one voting booth in the mostly white neighborhoods but put dozens in the black neighborhoods such that white voters had to wait for up to 8 hours to vote while in black communities there was no wait time, I'm sure you'd just say sarcastically "How dare they male everybody do the same thing".

 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.10  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.2    6 months ago
Where is all this evidence of voter fraud?

Why such resistance to preventing voter fraud?

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.11  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.10    6 months ago
Why such resistance to preventing voter fraud?

Why such insistence on implementing voter ID laws that have been shown to specifically target eligible minority voters even when there is virtually no evidence of any widespread vote fraud? If you don't want blacks having a vote just come right out and say so. Hiding behind excuses like "Well they should be able to follow the rules just like white voters do" doesn't excuse Republican attempts to disenfranchise them.

 
 
XDm9mm
1.1.12  XDm9mm  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.11    6 months ago
virtually no evidence of any widespread vote fraud?

Virtually does not mean ZERO.   Here's something to ponder.  ONE fraudulent vote, FOR EITHER SIDE, negates a legitimate vote of the opposite side.

You might appreciate that your vote might be negated by an ILLEGAL vote, I do not.

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.13  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1.12    6 months ago
ONE fraudulent vote, FOR EITHER SIDE, negates a legitimate vote of the opposite side.

"11% of U.S. citizens – or more than 21 million Americans – do not have government-issued photo identification"

"A 2014 GAO study found that strict photo ID laws reduce turnout by 2-3 percentage points, which can translate into tens of thousands of votes lost in a single state"

https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet

"In Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin, about 112,000 transgender people who have transitioned are estimated to be eligible to vote—34,000 of them may face barriers to voting this November due to strict ID laws."

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/strict-voter-id-laws-may-disenfranchise-more-than-34000-transgender-voters-in-the-2016-november-election/

So on one hand you have Republicans trying to prevent the handful of actual fraudulent votes cast because "One is too many", but to do so they disenfranchise tens of thousands of eligible Americans. And when Republicans intentionally target minority voters who traditionally vote Democrat it's pretty clear why pieces of shit who shouldn't be allowed to call themselves Americans push for these garbage voter ID laws, their shitty smirk continuing to hide behind their claim of voter fraud which they have almost no evidence of because it gives them an edge at the polls and is how the Republicans have built their current majority. They don't want free and fair elections, they want the butchers thumb on the scale of democracy as long as it tips in their favor.

So don't kid yourself, if you support these Republican voter ID laws, you're not for free and fair elections, you're not trying to stop voter fraud, you're engaging in it.

 
 
XDm9mm
1.1.14  XDm9mm  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.13    6 months ago

So don't kid yourself, if you support these Republican voter ID laws, you're not for free and fair elections, you're not trying to stop voter fraud, you're engaging in it.

Only mindless lemmings believe what you just posted.

Prove you're eligible to vote LEGALLY, or just go away.   Hell, even Mexico REQUIRES a photo Id to vote.  Are you telling me we can't do the same here?

 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
1.1.15  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.9    6 months ago

The purge, as stated by the SCOTUS, is 100% legal.  The purge of this information means that there is an increased chance that voter fraud WON'T happen.  Now you can blather on all you want about how it's racist (of which it's not) and it makes it harder for the poor and minorities (which it doesn't) it doesn't change the fact that EVERYBODY (poor, rich, minority, majority, etc.) will have to re-register and update their information.  Everybody will have to do the same thing.  Fair across the board.

 
 
tomwcraig
1.1.16  tomwcraig  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.15    6 months ago

Ohio gives people 6 years to vote before removing them.  That is quite generous, in my opinion.

 
 
Fireryone
1.1.17  Fireryone  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.3    6 months ago
The Democrats rely on fraudulent votes, and there is no voter suppression going on.

This is a despicable lie.   

 
 
Texan1211
1.1.18  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.15    6 months ago

Some aren't interested in FAIR.

They want special privileges.

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.19  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.18    6 months ago
Some aren't interested in FAIR.

Very true, and they're called Republicans as the courts found in both NC and Texas after reviewing their voter ID laws that specifically targeted minority voters. 

 
 
Texan1211
1.1.20  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.19    6 months ago

Yawn.

This has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with those cases.

 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
1.1.21  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.18    6 months ago

Some aren't interested in FAIR.

They want special privileges.

And those are usually the laziest and loudest.

 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
1.1.22  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.19    6 months ago
Very true, and they're called Republicans as the courts found in both NC and Texas after reviewing their voter ID laws that specifically targeted minority voters.

This article has nothing to do with Republicans, Democrats, NC or TX.  You should really try to keep on topic.

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.23  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.22    6 months ago
This article has nothing to do with Republicans, Democrats, NC or TX.

From the article:

"Voters purged from registration rolls who challenged the policy in the Republican-governed state argued that the practice illegally erased thousands of voters from registration rolls and disproportionately impacted racial minorities and poor people who tend to back Democratic candidates."

"Many states over the decades had erected barriers to voting, sometimes targeting black voters."

"All four liberal justices dissented, and top Democrats said the decision will boost what they called Republican voter-suppression efforts."

Maybe you really ought to read the article so you can stay on topic.

 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
1.1.24  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.23    6 months ago

As I stated, this article is not about NC or TX.  What about that sentence is so hard for you to understand?  It does NOT disproportionately impact racial minorities and poor people who tend to back Democratic candidates because EVERYBODY has to re-register.  It is legal as per the SCOTUS decision.

 
 
r.t..b...
1.2  r.t..b...  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    6 months ago

Hey Vic...this is a tough one for me. Given the dismal percentage of eligible voters taking part in the process, shouldn't we be making every effort to make it easier to vote? From the article..."Five other states also remove voters from their registration lists for failure to vote." And this is burdensome why? To me, if you can show proper ID verifying a current address, cast your ballot. I'd go as far to say let's combine Veteran's Day and Election Day as a National Holiday, close up shop and make it easier for everyone. Crazy, eh?

 
 
XDm9mm
1.2.1  XDm9mm  replied to  r.t..b... @1.2    6 months ago
To me, if you can show proper ID verifying a current address, cast your ballot.

Does that ID include proof of citizenship?   Don't forget, California issues ID (drivers licenses) to illegal alien invaders. 

How about this as an alternative.

Lets get off our asses and have a national ID.  Hell, it could even be linked with drivers licenses or state ID cards.

 
 
Greg Jones
1.2.2  Greg Jones  replied to  r.t..b... @1.2    6 months ago
To me, if you can show proper ID verifying a current address, cast your ballot.

The Democrats believe that having a proper ID verifying a current address is racist and bigoted, and amounts to voter suppression. .

 
 
BeastOfTheEast
1.2.3  BeastOfTheEast  replied to  r.t..b... @1.2    6 months ago

I agree election day should be a national holiday.

 
 
BeastOfTheEast
1.2.4  BeastOfTheEast  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2.2    6 months ago
The Democrats believe that having a proper ID verifying a current address is racist and bigoted, and amounts to voter suppression

Democrats don't really believe that, they just like voter fraud.

 
 
Dean Moriarty
1.2.5  Dean Moriarty  replied to  BeastOfTheEast @1.2.3    6 months ago

No thanks I’d rather everybody got a paper ballot in the mail and fill it out at their convenience like we do in Colorado. No need to disrupt our work schedule. 

 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
1.2.6  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2.1    6 months ago
Hell, it could even be linked with drivers licenses or state ID cards.

a simple update to the real ID act will do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_ID_Act

 
 
BeastOfTheEast
1.2.7  BeastOfTheEast  replied to  Dean Moriarty @1.2.5    6 months ago
No thanks I’d rather everybody got a paper ballot in the mail and fill it out at their convenience like we do in Colorado.
The problem with that is, it doesn't take into account the people that move without updating their voter registration information. What measures are in place to prevent the person now living at the previous occupants address from voting in their name?
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.8  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  r.t..b... @1.2    6 months ago
Hey Vic...this is a tough one for me. Given the dismal percentage of eligible voters taking part in the process, shouldn't we be making every effort to make it easier to vote?

No. What does low turnout mean?  To me it means satisfaction. Do we want elections decided by people with no interest in an election, but had to be prodded to vote?

 And this is burdensome why?

Lol, It has nothing to do with extra work.

 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.9  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dean Moriarty @1.2.5    6 months ago
No thanks I’d rather everybody got a paper ballot in the mail and fill it out at their convenience like we do in Colorado.

And maybe have some leftwing community organizer pick up the ballots. That would make it real easy!

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.2.10  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2.1    6 months ago
Don't forget, California issues ID (drivers licenses) to illegal alien invaders.

Just having a drivers license does not allow you to vote and there isn't any evidence of widespread voter fraud being committed by undocumented immigrants in California or anywhere else.

"What we do know is that confirmed cases of voter fraud in California are extremely rare. There were 149 cases investigated by state officials in 2016, more than most years over the past decade. Investigators only found six cases out of 23.1 million votes cast worth sending to local district attorneys."

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-road-map-trump-california-voter-fraud-accusations-20180408-story.html

There are 21 million legal citizens who don't have a valid photo ID. Now you can claim that this should be easy for anyone who wants to vote, but the reality is that many don't have valid ID's because they were suspended due to unpaid parking tickets or unreported vehicle accidents or possibly a DUI and owe thousands of dollars to the State department of motor vehicles before they can get their license back. Should we really disenfranchise voters simply because they failed to pay parking tickets? Is that what the constitution says should be the litmus test for being able to vote? Nonsense.

As for a national ID, if the government were willing to invest in a mobile camera man to go around to the elderly and infirm to get their photos taken and verify their identity to issue updated photo ID's while also offering a free national photo ID at any US Post office that would be updated once every decade, I'd almost agree with you. But to do all that just to stop the handful of fraudulent votes cast doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It's easier to just stop this attempt to purge voters and disenfranchise eligible voters with onerous voter ID laws.

 
 
Raven Wing
1.2.11  Raven Wing  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.2.10    6 months ago
Don't forget, California issues ID (drivers licenses) to illegal alien invaders.

Which shows you know nothing abut the voting requirements in California. All you want to do is stir the pot by saying such inane crap that is totally untrue.

 
 
Raven Wing
1.2.12  Raven Wing  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.9    6 months ago
And maybe have some leftwing community organizer pick up the ballots. That would make it real easy!

Wow!  You do have some really wild dreams. What is the difference in having a leftwing organizer pick them up or a rightwing cheater picking them up? And that is the difference in having either of those pick them up and the Russians and their toadies hack the computer voting? 

Your inane accusation makes no sense at all. You just want to stir the pot with your partisan crap. 

 
 
Jasper2529
1.2.13  Jasper2529  replied to  Raven Wing @1.2.12    6 months ago
What is the difference in having a leftwing organizer pick them up or a rightwing cheater picking them up? 

You just want to stir the pot with your partisan crap. 

It appears that the above comment stirred the pot with "partisan crap".

 
 
Raven Wing
1.2.14  Raven Wing  replied to  Jasper2529 @1.2.13    6 months ago

"It appears that the above comment stirred the pot with "partisan crap"."

Yes indeed. Yours.

 
 
Jasper2529
1.2.15  Jasper2529  replied to  Raven Wing @1.2.14    6 months ago
Yes indeed. Yours.

Incorrect. Please read the thread. My comment was not the one that accused the right wing of being cheaters. 

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.2.16  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Raven Wing @1.2.11    6 months ago
Which shows you know nothing abut the voting requirements in California.

I assume you were replying to Xdm9mm who made the comment I was replying to.

 
 
Texan1211
1.2.17  Texan1211  replied to  Raven Wing @1.2.11    6 months ago

So California does NOT issue illegal aliens drivers licenses?

 
 
Raven Wing
1.2.19  Raven Wing  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.2.16    6 months ago

Yes. It was aimed at 9mm

 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.20  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Raven Wing @1.2.12    6 months ago
Your inane accusation makes no sense at all

Not unless you remember ACORN

 
 
charger 383
2  charger 383    6 months ago

Important things should require some effort

 
 
Tessylo
2.1  Tessylo  replied to  charger 383 @2    6 months ago

That's so profound!

 
 
Jasper2529
3  Jasper2529    6 months ago

“Democracy suffers when laws make it harder for U.S. citizens to vote,” top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer said.

What laws "make it harder" for US citizens to vote, Chuck? All we have to do is show proof of US citizenship and our legal address to register and then cast our ballot before or on Election Day. Millions of US citizens know how to do it.  Easy!
“This wrongly decided decision paves the way to mass disenfranchisement in Ohio and around the country,” top House of Representatives Democrat Nancy Pelosi added.
Nobody's disenfranchised, Nancy. All they have to do is go through the proper channels and vote!
How dare any state purge their voting records of people who are either dead or haven't bothered to vote in 6 or more years!  
 
 
Texan1211
3.1  Texan1211  replied to  Jasper2529 @3    6 months ago

At the rate they are going, sometime in the not-so-distant future, Democrats will demand that ballots be hand-delivered to every voter at their residence and collected from there, too.

Can't have people responsible for getting themselves to the polls, or even knowing that there IS an election, right?

 
 
Jasper2529
3.1.1  Jasper2529  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1    6 months ago
Can't have people responsible for getting themselves to the polls, or even knowing that there IS an election, right?

I just don't understand what Dems are so upset about, Texan. Two of my grandparents legally emigrated to the US and became US citizens in the very early 1900s. They lived in 5 different US locations, "somehow" figured out how to register (or re-register when they moved), and cast their ballots in every election. Even when they were no longer able to drive, they took a taxi or bus because voting was very important to them. 

 
 
Texan1211
3.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.1.1    6 months ago

What they want is for Democrats to be able to vote without putting forth ANY effort whatsoever.

 
 
r.t..b...
3.1.3  r.t..b...  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.2    6 months ago
What they want is for Democrats to be able to vote without putting forth ANY effort whatsoever.

Morning, Texan...I still don't understand the anger and contempt for encouraging people to cast a vote by making it as accessible as possible. It is a gift that too many do not appreciate (regardless of party affiliation and look at all the unregistered). With a more invested electorate, I think we would have better candidates and those who are elected would be held more accountable. I'm sure someone can produce the actual numbers, but the university of my eyes says a small minority of the populace actually votes regularly...and sadly, a smaller percentage still in local and state contests. Not sure how to shake the apathy, but building in restrictions can't help. But just my view through these rose-colored glasses.

 
 
Texan1211
3.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  r.t..b... @3.1.3    6 months ago

Awful damn easy to register to vote in this day and age. 10 minutes on a computer is all it usually takes. Or a short trip to register MIGHT be necessary.

Not hard at all.

 
 
321steve
3.1.5  321steve  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.4    6 months ago
10 minutes on a computer is all it usually takes. Or a short trip to register MIGHT be necessary.

Not hard at all.

True if you have a computer and are not bedridden. I worked with disabled veterans, Some of these folks couldn't afford a computer in their home and had a hell of a time getting out.

One old guy in particular I'm thinking about was in the hospital during a election time and he didn't vote, he next election he didn't receive his absentee ballot and never did what was needed to get them restated. He said he was OK with not voting anymore cause the politicians are all scum these days anyway. so... results ...one less voter. 

Not hard at all ? I agree but I'd add not hard at all, "for most of us."

PS: Knowing "Bob" for as long as I did, I'm sure he voted a straight republican ticket every time he voted. 

Not anymore.

 
 
Texan1211
3.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  321steve @3.1.5    6 months ago

Well, the person who posted her husband was having a hard time apparently has access to the internet.

So, yes, kind of easy.

 
 
Jasper2529
3.1.7  Jasper2529  replied to  r.t..b... @3.1.3    6 months ago
Not sure how to shake the apathy, but building in restrictions can't help.

Hi, r.t..b...

IMO, no US citizen in modern history  (see 1919 and 1965 laws) has ever had his/her voting rights restricted/revoked unless they're convicted felons, and even some felons have had their voting rights restored.

As I've already said, the only requirements needed are to provide documentation of US citizenship and legal residence to register and then put forth some effort to cast their ballot either by mail or go to their local polling location.

Hundreds of millions of US citizens have somehow managed to follow these simple rules, so I don't see why "disenfranchisement" should be even discussed.

 
 
321steve
3.1.8  321steve  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.6    6 months ago

I agree for most of us voters yes it is not too damn difficult to keep your voter status intack or to regain it if it is dropped from the voting rolls. However that is not the case for all americans who are eligible to vote.  

I offered but one instance of disabled voter purged from the system that isn't even fighting to get his right back, I doubt he is the only one.  

 
 
Texan1211
3.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  321steve @3.1.8    6 months ago

I tend to believe that people too apathetic to make sure they are registered to vote wouldn't likely vote anyways.

 
 
Texan1211
3.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.1.7    6 months ago

I believe "disenfranchised" is the new code word for "apathetic".

 
 
r.t..b...
3.1.11  r.t..b...  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.1.7    6 months ago
so I don't see why "disenfranchisement" should be even discussed.

Agreed, Jasper. The democrats do themselves no favors with all the grandstanding and righteous indignation...it only serves to further alienate and/or give excuses to voters they are courting. But the other side shows an unwillingness to address what I think are legitimate concerns by standing firmly in the status quo. Just another issue where an honest conversation and thoughtful deliberation might just make the system work better for everyone. Just one example... in my fair city's last election (not a general), 40% of the precincts were closed in a cost saving gesture, but a map of the closed precincts showed most were in poorer, minority populated areas. It was a hardship for too many and the single-digit turnout should raise a few flags.

 
 
321steve
3.1.12  321steve  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.9    6 months ago

I have little doubt the retired veteran I talked about losing his voting privilege ever attempts to ever vote again, he's 83 years old and for him the fighting is over.

 
 
Jasper2529
3.1.13  Jasper2529  replied to  r.t..b... @3.1.11    6 months ago
Just one example... in my fair city's last election (not a general), 40% of the precincts were closed in a cost saving gesture, but a map of the closed precincts showed most were in poorer, minority populated areas. It was a hardship for too many and the single-digit turnout should raise a few flags.

Without knowing details, it would be foolish of me to make an educated assessment of what happened in your city.

However, what was the "hardship"? Did the eligible voters in that district not have:

  • access to absentee ballots?
  • their own transportation?
  • family or friends who could drive them?
  • access to a taxi or public transportation?
  • Senior Citizen or VA services that drive people to and from polling locations for free?
  • etc.

As I've previously said, sometimes we need to compromise to achieve our goals.  

 

 
 
r.t..b...
3.1.14  r.t..b...  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.1.13    6 months ago
As I've previously said, sometimes we need to compromise to achieve our goals.

Exactly...and thanks for the civility.

 
 
Jasper2529
3.1.15  Jasper2529  replied to  r.t..b... @3.1.14    6 months ago
thanks for the civility.

And thank you for yours!  thumbs up

 
 
freepress
4  freepress    6 months ago

My husband is a veteran, and because of his illnesses he does not vote in every election due to those illnesses. So Americans, American citizens, American Veterans get kicked off as well.

He does not want to mail in a ballot because of the case in Virginia where a election clerk threw out a bunch of Democratic ballots found in a dumpster.

I sent a letter to Husted about it because they sent a warning letter and I was absolutely outraged that my husband was lumped into the category of illegals and other fear mongering spread about by Republicans in their greedy grab for more power in their gerrymandering attempts to suppress votes.

All I got back was a form letter. No regard for American Veterans at all.

 
 
Texan1211
4.1  Texan1211  replied to  freepress @4    6 months ago

Why not just register him online?

Doesn't have to go anywhere--takes minutes.

Easy solution to not-really-a-problem.

 
 
XDm9mm
4.2  XDm9mm  replied to  freepress @4    6 months ago

Being a veteran myself,  I have empathy for the position you and your husband find yourselves in.  However, if your husband is unwilling to afford himself the existing opportunities to vote provided for him, well I'm sorry, but he has created his own problem and it's not the responsibility of others to make special arrangements to placate his personal desires.

Simply send in a mail ballot.  If necessary, send it certified - return receipt as that proves receipt and a name of the person who accepted it.

 
 
Jasper2529
4.3  Jasper2529  replied to  freepress @4    6 months ago

First, I hope you and your husband will accept my heartfelt gratitude for his service.

Second, I'm sorry that he is ill and unable to get to your voting location.

Third, you made it known that you live in Ohio (you said that you sent a letter to your state's SoS Jon Husted), but I don't understand why one case in Virginia is the reason why your husband won't use Ohio's mail-in/absentee ballot option.

In no way am I criticizing you or your husband, but sometimes we need to compromise in order to achieve our goal. In your husband's case, that goal is to exercise his legal right to vote. 

I found these two articles that might help:

https://ballotpedia.org/Voting_in_Ohio

https://www.wikihow.com/Vote-Early-in-Ohio (please also read Sources and Citations)

 
 
Sean Treacy
5  Sean Treacy    6 months ago

The Court followed the law. Novel concept. 

 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
6  The Magic Eight Ball    6 months ago

the left dislikes "state control of anything

 in their world, the federal government should control everything.

the fact that we do not even have a federal election for president? drives them insane

 
 
Old School Marine
7  Old School Marine    6 months ago

Poor little Democrats are getting their asses kicked at the voting booth, in the courts, everywhere, and they have no clue how or why, hehehehehehe.

BLAME YOURSELVES

 
 
bbl-1
8  bbl-1    6 months ago

Good move by the conservatives. 

Karl Rove engineered this promise of a 'permanent republican majority.' 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Galen Marvin Ross
charger 383
livefreeordie
Studiusbagus
epistte
Kavika
squiggy
MrFrost
Phoenyx13
Steve Ott

Texan1211
JBB
bugsy


52 visitors