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

In a 5-4 decision written by Justice Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that Ohio and other states are allowed to purge voters from their rolls who are inactive and do not respond to requests to confirm their residency. Ohio has removed more than two million voters from its rolls since 2011, with black voters more likely to be purged than white voters. A number of civil rights groups argued that the decision would likely aid Republicans but hurt Democrats and voters of color. Republicans typically have an advantage in low-turnout races.

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.

It is sickening. An issue such as this should not be decided along partisan lines. What an ugly reminder that the SCOTUS is just another bunch of political hacks.

#1 | Posted by moder8 at 2018-06-11 04:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 9

Gotta make sure those Dems can't vote!

#2 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-06-11 04:21 PM | Reply

What's strange is that in the opinion cited said it's up to Congress to legislate, paraphrasing. Isn't is the job of the Supreme Court and the various circuit courts to test legislation? Another 5-4 decision where even the brightest legal minds in the nation can't agree.

Of course it's political. Anything to keep the mob from voting.

#3 | Posted by madscientist at 2018-06-11 04:26 PM | Reply

"The 5-4 decision fell strictly along ideological lines, with the larger, conservative bloc voting together against the more liberal justices. Justice Stephen Breyer, who wrote the dissenting opinion said that, because most voters tend to ignore the notices they recieve, it's their failure to show up to the polls that constitutes the main reason they're kicked off the rolls.

"More often than not, the state fails to receive anything back from the registrant, and the fact that the state hears nothing from the registrant essentially proves nothing at all," he explained.

Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown wrote on Twitter that "Ohio should be working to make voting easier, not harder. Instead, today's decision empowers Ohio to further strip away the right to vote for thousands of Ohioans, threatening the integrity of our state's election process."

The Supreme Court has a history of voters' rights decisions that benefit the Republican party. In 2000's Bush v. Gore, the court ruled that recounting votes in Florida was unconstitutional, allowing President George W. Bush to take office.

In 2010's Citizen's United v. FEC, the court decided that corporations can legally pump unlimited amounts of cash into independent political advertisements.

And in 2013's Shelby County v. Holder, the court found that parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were unconstitutional. The court removed a section of the act that required states and counties with a history of voter suppression to obtain federal preclearance before altering their local voter laws."

The less people vote, the more Republicans win.... the less educated, the more alienated and afraid of losing their social status to minorities people are, the more Republicans win. Fact.

#4 | Posted by Corky at 2018-06-11 04:43 PM | Reply

Voter enrollment should be automatic. The only valid reasons to remove someone from the list of eligible voters should be if they move or die.

#5 | Posted by qcp at 2018-06-11 04:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Republicans make it harder to vote because they know the crap they pull in office alienates a majority of the people. They have to make it harder for blacks and working class voters to cast ballots or they will lose.

The conservative majority of the Supreme Court picked a president in 2000, opened the floodgates to dirty money in our politics in 2010 and is now ramping up the attack on voting rights. They want to establish a conservative lock on the court by helping Republicans suppress votes.

In a truly fair election with unassailable voting rights and reforms like a national holiday for Election Day, Republicans would get their asses kicked. Today's decision is one more indication that they know this.

#6 | Posted by rcade at 2018-06-11 05:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

Open it up to where anyone can vote. Vote on the internet. It's going to get hacked. There is big unfounded fear of voter fraud. Just let everybody vote. Oh, and get rid of the EC. Let's have a constitutional convention. It's long overdue.

#7 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2018-06-11 05:22 PM | Reply

I can't see anything wrong with states having the ability to delete dormant voting records out of their system after it has been established that the voter is unresponsive and not contactable.

#8 | Posted by ajwood at 2018-06-11 06:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I can't see anything wrong with states having the ability to delete dormant voting records"

How about if the state does it only in districts that lean Democrat, or only to people who based on demographics ate likely to vote Democrat?

Also, what's the actual need to purge "dormamt" records?

#9 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-11 07:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I would guess that the definition of Dormant Record could be:
1. No voting activity associated with record.
2. Unresponsive to mail that requests updating of record in timely manner (checking in).

If a state wants to embarrass itself by selective audits along party lines, they'll need more than SCOTUS to figure it out for them.

#10 | Posted by ajwood at 2018-06-11 07:24 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

"If a state wants to embarrass itself by selective audits along party lines, they'll need more than SCOTUS to figure it out for them."

Here's what they did here in NC in 2016.

amp.slate.com

#11 | Posted by qcp at 2018-06-11 07:30 PM | Reply

The only valid reasons to remove someone from the list of eligible voters is if they don't vote for my political party.

~Trumpublicans everywhere.

Trumpublicans don't want honest elections. It's why they're desperate to remove all minority voters from the list of eligible voters.

#12 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-06-11 07:31 PM | Reply

I would guess that the definition of Dormant Record could be:

Anything.

Once you allow people to be removed from voting lists. There's no accountability for who's getting removed and for what reason.

#13 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-06-11 07:33 PM | Reply

Short of action initiated by an individual voter or a voter's surviving kin there really is no good excuse for the state or anyone else altering or inhibiting a citizen's right to vote. Anyone who makes it harder to vote is the enemy of democracy and freedom.

#14 | Posted by qcp at 2018-06-11 07:37 PM | Reply

"If a state wants to embarrass itself by selective audits along party lines, they'll need more than SCOTUS to figure it out for them."

That's what CrossCheck is for.

#15 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-11 07:40 PM | Reply

"There's no accountability for who's getting removed and for what reason."

This is precisely why Kathleen Harris had a private out of state company scrub the Florida voter rolls in 2000. Zero accountability.

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-11 07:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The burden of proof is on the voter to prove that the record matches their current information.

What if someone dies or marries (name change) or moves or goes to prison?

I don't see how the SCOTUS decision will make North Carolina eager to embarrass itself with voter audits while it tries so hard to woo manufacturing and corporate centers into its state.

#17 | Posted by ajwood at 2018-06-11 07:42 PM | Reply

The author of the article demonstrates a bumper sticker level comprehension of the issue in this case and and the others she whines about. No wonder Corky and Rcade buy into it.

Here is a far better analysis of this case. www.scotusblog.com

#18 | Posted by et_al at 2018-06-11 11:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Ohio has removed more than two million voters from its rolls since 2011, with black voters more likely to be purged than white voters."

Comment, et al?

#19 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2018-06-12 12:09 AM | Reply

Once you allow people to be removed from voting lists.

Take it up with Congress. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 expressly permits the removal of voters from the rolls.

#20 | Posted by et_al at 2018-06-12 12:14 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Sotomayor pointed to a "friend of the court" brief filed in the case indicating that "African-American-majority neighborhoods in downtown Cincinnati had 10% of their voters removed due to inactivity" in the last few years, as "compared to only 4% of voters in a suburban, majority-white neighborhood."

This sounds like a disparate racial impact to me, which should be illegal.

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-12 12:19 AM | Reply

#19

The question is why? Is it because they vote sporadically? Because they move more often without doing USPS change of address registrations? It doesn't seem to be partisanship.

Unlike other voting-rights disputes that have sparked protests and lawsuits, the practice doesn't appear to be driven by one specific party. Both Republican and Democratic officials in Ohio have purged inactive voters over the past 20 years.

But neighborhoods that have a high proportion of poor, African-American residents are hit hardest, the Reuters analysis found. www.reuters.com

#22 | Posted by et_al at 2018-06-12 12:27 AM | Reply

because dems tend to skip midterms, would be my guess.

#23 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2018-06-12 12:28 AM | Reply

"But neighborhoods that have a high proportion of poor, African-American residents are hit hardest, the Reuters analysis found."

This sounds like a disparate racial impact to me, which should be illegal.

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-12 01:07 AM | Reply

#23

Not enough, takes two full federal election cycles without voting, that's minimum four years.

#25 | Posted by et_al at 2018-06-12 01:19 AM | Reply

Most of those races aren't competitive. Heck, most Presidential races aren't that competitive. So, you could only vote when it's close, which would easily have you missing one Presidential vote every four years or so.

It's pretty clearly an arbitrary threshold which with just a little bit of thought can be envisioned to disenfranchise otherwise legible voters.

I'm aware it's legal to disenfranchise otherwise eligible voters, but when such a thing happens, if it disproportionately affects the very minorities the law is purported t protect, that should probably indicate using a different threshold.

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-12 03:34 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

This makes it difficult for away for home college students to vote, known to hold liberal ideals. Karl Rove invented this Republican dirty trick. Send an address confirmation card to all registered voters in August, return requested. All students who went home for the summer will discover in November that they are no longer registered.

Once you lose your drivers license, due to aging, maintaining registration will become increasingly difficult.

Makes me wonder what sort of accommodations are made for the blind to vote?

#27 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-06-12 06:17 AM | Reply

I think if you voted for the traitorous scum that is the Orange Fuhrer then you need to be purged from the voter rolls.

#28 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2018-06-12 09:17 AM | Reply

#19
The question is why? Is it because they vote sporadically? Because they move more often without doing USPS change of address registrations? It doesn't seem to be partisanship.

Unlike other voting-rights disputes that have sparked protests and lawsuits, the practice doesn't appear to be driven by one specific party. Both Republican and Democratic officials in Ohio have purged inactive voters over the past 20 years.
But neighborhoods that have a high proportion of poor, African-American residents are hit hardest, the Reuters analysis found. www.reuters.com

#22 | POSTED BY ET_AL

Does it matter why if the effects of the law are so blatantly effecting a minority group?

#29 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-06-12 03:14 PM | Reply

"Does it matter why"

Yeah, it's unclear why he brought that up, but doesn't seem to think racial disparity is worth thinking about...

#30 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-12 04:30 PM | Reply

Does it matter why if the effects of the law are so blatantly effecting a minority group?

Of course it does. Not every disparate impact is prohibited by law.

#31 | Posted by et_al at 2018-06-12 07:00 PM | Reply

I'm not sure what Et_Al is arguing for when he's the first to speak out against any gun regulations because it's a slippery slope and can be abused.

But purging voters? No way that can be abused.

#32 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-06-12 07:15 PM | Reply

The question is why?
#22 | POSTED BY ET_AL

I don't believe that question was before the court, Et_Al.

#33 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-12 10:09 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