Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, June 11, 2018

In a 5-4 decision, the court's majority said the practice, known as the "supplemental process," does not violate the National Voter Registration Act, which bars states from removing the names of people from the voter rolls for failing to vote. The court's five conservative justices voted in the majority, with the court's four liberals dissenting. Under the supplemental process, voters who have not voted in two years are flagged and sent a confirmation notice. Voters who then fail to respond to the notice and fail to vote within the next two years are removed from the rolls.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Good.

#1 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-06-11 02:35 PM | Reply

I think this is bad policy, but it seems to be Constitutional.

#2 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-11 02:47 PM | Reply


I can see why it was 5-4.

This

... voters who have not voted in two years are flagged and sent a confirmation notice. Voters who then fail to respond to the notice and fail to vote within the next two years are removed from the rolls....

goes a long way to assuaging concerns among some.

#3 | Posted by LampLighter at 2018-06-11 03:10 PM | Reply

#2

It is a case of statutory interpretation, the Constitution was not at issue.

Better analysis. www.scotusblog.com

#4 | Posted by et_al at 2018-06-11 03:22 PM | Reply

#4 Cool. Thanks for the clarification.

#5 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-11 03:52 PM | Reply

Here is the opinion, 16-980 Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute (06/11/2018)

The Majority took the unusual (but not unheard of) step on calling out Sotomayor's and Breyer's dissent at the end of the opinion as follows:

The dissents have a policy disagreement, not just with Ohio, but with Congress. But this case presents a question of statutory interpretation, not a question of policy. We have no authority to second-guess Congress or to decide whether Ohio's Supplemental Process 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.

#6 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-06-11 03:55 PM | Reply

This discussion has moved.

#7 | Posted by retort at 2018-06-11 05:48 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort