SCOTUS Upholds Ohio's Inactive Voter Purging in 5-4 Vote

[libertpaulian]

Just got the notification on my phone...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-purge/supreme-court-upholds-ohio-voter-registration-purge-policy-idUSKBN1J71QQ

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If TD's Cordray Era is to come true, he'd better have some major voter registration drives this summer and fall and ways to turn out these voters.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Boooooooooooooooooooooo

[Sestak]

Boooooooooooooooooooooo

[ON Progressive]

Boooooooooooooooooooooo

[Strudelcutie4427]

This bodes poorly for Deceased Voters

[KingSweden]

Enshrines an unideal method of managing the rolls, so HP ruling on policy grounds, but if Kathleen Clyde wins SOS in OH then this goes away day one, so there’s an electoral remedy just a few months away if voters seize it

[ON Progressive]

This bodes poorly for Deceased Voters

[Brittain33]

Ohio's procedure here isn't as bad as what other states do to suppress voting.

[SWE]

, so there’s an electoral remedy just a few months away if voters seize it

The point of these kind of rules is to keep that sort of thing from happening, unfortunately.

[IndustrialJustice]

Of course.

There would really be no material difference if Samuel Alito was replaced on the Court tomorrow by Jeanine Pirro.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Both sides have good arguments here and I'm not really sure if this was the way the case should have been decided or not. But the good news is that this year's SOS election can be a referendum on the system - and if a majority of Ohio effectively votes to continue the system, then so be it.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Ohio's procedure here isn't as bad as what other states do to suppress voting.

What is it?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Boooooooooooooooooooooo

[muon2]

The part of the OH process in question requires
1) A voter fail to vote in two consecutive general election cycles;
2) The voter fail to return a postcard matching federal requirements mailed to their registration address;
3) A voter fail to vote in two consecutive general election cycles after the postcard was mailed.

In this case the question was whether step 1 complied with federal law. Federal law says that you cannot use failure to vote as a reason to remove a registration, but it also says that to remove a registration a voter without their consent, the voter must fail to vote in two consecutive cycles. The federal law is complex and open to interpretation as to how one can resolve the contradiction in the use of a failure to vote. The SCOTUS majority said that step one did comply and the dissent said the two cycles only applies after a postcard is mailed (as in step 3), and cannot be used in any other way.

[gerritcole]

Of course.

There would really be no material difference if Samuel Alito was replaced on the Court tomorrow by Jeanine Pirro.

What's the point of this? If any lib replaced any lib justice, nothing would change either

[Badger]

Boooooooooooooooooooooo

[UncleSam]

Literally all you have to do to stay on the rolls is confirm your residency once a decade. It is so dumb that this is even contested. The law states that not only is this system of maintaining your rolls allowable, it is in fact a requirement that many states ignore.

If Ohio were purging voters for failing to vote, it would be a different story. But that’s not what they’re doing. They’re asking for confirmation of residence in the event you stop voting, which is an entirely different thing.

You ought to have to confirm your residence once in a while to maintain voting eligibility, because people move without telling the state all the time. It is just bizarre that so many people thing the SOS basicallyy should refuse to do their job because it might ‘disenfranchise minority voters’, as if this policy is being applied in an uneven manner. If minority voters do not respond to confirm their residency why should they be subject to different laws from white voters?

[KingSweden]

Literally all you have to do to stay on the rolls is confirm your residency once a decade. It is so dumb that this is even contested. The law states that not only is this system of maintaining your rolls allowable, it is in fact a requirement that many states ignore.

If Ohio were purging voters for failing to vote, it would be a different story. But that’s not what they’re doing. They’re asking for confirmation of residence in the event you stop voting, which is an entirely different thing.

You ought to have to confirm your residence once in a while to maintain voting eligibility, because people move without telling the state all the time. It is just bizarre that so many people thing the SOS basicallyy should refuse to do their job because it might ‘disenfranchise minority voters’, as if this policy is being applied in an uneven manner. If minority voters do not respond to confirm their residency why should they be subject to different laws from white voters?

A way to alleviate concerns about uneven application of the law would of course be AVR.

[gerritcole]

Literally all you have to do to stay on the rolls is confirm your residency once a decade. It is so dumb that this is even contested. The law states that not only is this system of maintaining your rolls allowable, it is in fact a requirement that many states ignore.

If Ohio were purging voters for failing to vote, it would be a different story. But that’s not what they’re doing. They’re asking for confirmation of residence in the event you stop voting, which is an entirely different thing.

You ought to have to confirm your residence once in a while to maintain voting eligibility, because people move without telling the state all the time. It is just bizarre that so many people thing the SOS basicallyy should refuse to do their job because it might ‘disenfranchise minority voters’, as if this policy is being applied in an uneven manner. If minority voters do not respond to confirm their residency why should they be subject to different laws from white voters?

It seems that any regulation of all of voting somehow is racist and disenfranchises minority/young voters. Can you show ID? Racist. Can you confirm that you still live in the state/wherever if you stop voting for 8 years? Racist.

[Brittain33]

Ohio's procedure here isn't as bad as what other states do to suppress voting.

What is it?

Don't vote in 2 years, get postcard; if you don't reply to the postcard, don't vote for 4 years, and you're purged. This doesn't seem unreasonable.

[KingSweden]

Ohio's procedure here isn't as bad as what other states do to suppress voting.

What is it?

Don't vote in 2 years, get postcard; if you don't reply to the postcard, don't vote for 4 years, and you're purged. This doesn't seem unreasonable.

As I said upthread I don’t think it’s an ideal system, but it seems consistent enough with federal law that I can see how it wasn’t struck down and it’s an order of magnitude better than the execrable Crosscheck.

Of course AVR is the best method.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Of course.

There would really be no material difference if Samuel Alito was replaced on the Court tomorrow by Jeanine Pirro.

What's the point of this? If any lib replaced any lib justice, nothing would change either

Sotomayor is the only liberal justice on the Supreme Court, so...

[IndustrialJustice]

Of course.

There would really be no material difference if Samuel Alito was replaced on the Court tomorrow by Jeanine Pirro.

What's the point of this? If any lib replaced any lib justice, nothing would change either

Not even close to true. Breyer and Kagan cross the aisle all the time on various procedural and substantive issues and Ginsburg has a rightward bent on some criminal law doctrines.

Alito is just a Republican.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Of course.

There would really be no material difference if Samuel Alito was replaced on the Court tomorrow by Jeanine Pirro.

What's the point of this? If any lib replaced any lib justice, nothing would change either

Not even close to true. Breyer and Kagan cross the aisle all the time on various procedural and substantive issues and Ginsburg has a rightward bent on some criminal law doctrines.

Alito is just a Republican.

Ginsberg is all extremely corporatist with regard to class-action lawsuits and jurisdictional issues.

[muon2]

Literally all you have to do to stay on the rolls is confirm your residency once a decade. It is so dumb that this is even contested. The law states that not only is this system of maintaining your rolls allowable, it is in fact a requirement that many states ignore.

If Ohio were purging voters for failing to vote, it would be a different story. But that’s not what they’re doing. They’re asking for confirmation of residence in the event you stop voting, which is an entirely different thing.

You ought to have to confirm your residence once in a while to maintain voting eligibility, because people move without telling the state all the time. It is just bizarre that so many people thing the SOS basicallyy should refuse to do their job because it might ‘disenfranchise minority voters’, as if this policy is being applied in an uneven manner. If minority voters do not respond to confirm their residency why should they be subject to different laws from white voters?

A way to alleviate concerns about uneven application of the law would of course be AVR.

I'm all for AVR, but it relies on moves in state from the DMV records. For out of state moves there has to be an interstate system, of which ERIC is currently the best. Even then there still needs to be a mechanism when a voter dies outside of the jurisdiction where they are registered or moves without a forwarding address to a state that doesn't participate in ERIC. Something needs to trigger a postcard sent to verify a voter at the address, and AVR can't do that on its own.