Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
SpiceGIrl

Supreme Court, in 5–4 Decision, Allows States to Purge Voters for Their Failure to Vote

151 posts in this topic

Because of this decision, it is now likely that thousands of Americans will show up to the polls in 2018 hoping to cast a ballot—only to be told that they have been purged from the rolls because they skipped the past few elections. It is a nightmare scenario for voting-rights advocates that may affect the outcome of many future elections as well as the 2018 midterm elections in Ohio.
 

Quote

 

Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, Monday’s case, involves an unambiguous clause of the National Voter Registration Act, a federal law passed in 1993 to protect the franchise. The NVRA prohibits any state from removing a registrant from the federal roll “by reason of the person’s failure to vote.” Congress intended this provision to protect Americans’ right to vote and not to vote, barring states from implementing a “use it or lose it” policy that punished infrequent voters. For more than two decades, states have maintained their voter rolls without violating this provision. Most states use the Postal Service’s national change-of-address service to identify voters who might have moved or died and then send these voters notices to determine whether they wish to maintain their registration. If voters fail to return these notices and fail to vote in two consecutive federal elections, the NVRA allows them to be removed from the rolls.

Now, the Supreme Court has reversed that decision in an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito that warps the plain text of the NVRA to mean the opposite of what it actually says. Again, the law explicitly forbids any state from “removing of the name of any person from the official list of voters … by reason of the person’s failure to vote.” An amendment to the statute makes this command even clearer, stating that “no registrant may be removed solely by reason of a failure to vote.” Yet Alito insisted that Ohio does not purge voters based on their “failure to vote.” Instead, he wrote, Ohio “treats the failure to return a notice and the failure to vote as evidence that a registrant has moved, not as a ground for removal.” Because the state uses an individual’s failure to vote only as “evidence,” Alito concluded, its supplemental process comports with the NVRA.

Now that the court has blessed Ohio’s purges, more GOP-controlled states are likely to adopt similar proposals. The evidence from Ohio indicates that this process will primarily purge minority and low-income voters. It may well swing close elections in the future, and will undoubtedly lead to chaos and confusion at the polls. Thanks to the Supreme Court, myriad citizens will try to cast a ballot in the years to come—and learn that the state has quietly stripped them of their constitutional right to vote. 

 

Just to clarify the final sentence's error - there is no constitutional right to vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....inch by inch......... step by step.........

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a bad decision that was obviously politically motivated but let’s face it, how many voters that skipped out on 2016 are gonna come out to vote this year? My guess is not many. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Dystopia said:

This is a bad decision that was obviously politically motivated but let’s face it, how many voters that skipped out on 2016 are gonna come out to vote this year? My guess is not many. 

That would be an interesting study.  As I understand the Ohio law, the removed voter would have missed three consecutive federal elections, so it’s not a question of having not voted in 2016, but 2014 and 2012 as well, before they are denied a 2018 ballot.  I wonder how many this will actually affect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, gonzoliberal said:

....inch by inch......... step by step.........

 

Well if you haven't voted in two or three elections, it's apparently not a priority to you anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

7 minutes ago, bmore_ken said:

Well if you haven't voted in two or three elections, it's apparently not a priority to you anyway.

Do you really think the authors of this law care about how often anyone votes? Some consider not voting as a vote for none-of-the-above. Doesnt mean one might not like to vote later without having to catch a postcard in the mail and returning it. Let's put 'am through some hoops, well, just because.

This law reminds me of the "Grandfather" clause, a law passed, because it was unconstitutional to deny someone the right to vote on race, made it illegal to vote if your grandfather hadn't. So it denied Blacks the right to vote because, of course, former slaves had no grandfathers who could vote. In this case, because it is against the law to purge voter because they haven't voted, they purge them when they decline to return a postcard that they have received due to their having not voted.

The goal is the same, to deny the right to vote to citizens who tend not to vote for the conservative party that is now in power. Before, it was Democrats. Today they are Republicans. In both cases, they are conservatives, and, of course, almost exclusively white.

Interestingly, all these efforts by conservative Republicans to deny citizens the right to vote:  the gutting of the enforcement provision of the Voting Rights Act, photo-id laws, voter purges, felon voting bans in the wake of mass incarcerations, are ostensibly intended to protect the integrity of the voting process. But really, with the percentage of citizens able to vote dropping, the legitimacy of popular sovereignty is called into question. And with so many restrictions and regulations on voting, the targeted group, minority groups and the poor, become, in effect, second class citizens.

 

Edited by hst2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

taking away a right based on I lose it because I don't use it is stretching things just a bit. I've never had the need to invoke my 5th Amendment right. Am I going to lose that because I didn't use it in x amount of years? How about the 2nd Amendment...what if I don't buy a gun for x amount of years, do I lose that right as well? This decision opens up all kinds of avenues to remove rights from US citizens.

Edited by can you hear me now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hst2 said:

Some consider not voting as a vote for none-of-the-above. 

If that's true, what's the problem then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, can you hear me now! said:

taking away a right because I lose it because I don't use it is stretching things just a bit. I've never had the need to invoke my 5th Amendment right. Am I going to lose that because I didn't use it in x amount of years? How about the 2nd Amendment...what if I don't buy a gun for x amount of years, do I lose that right as well? This decision opens up all kinds of avenues to remove rights from US citizens.

You're not losing your right. You can just re register when you decide you feel like actually voting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I already registered and someone took my right away. Is exercising my right to vote required by law? No. It is my vote and as such, I can do what I feel is right for me with it. This is a wonderful example of voter suppression. Like I said, are we going to put time limits on all personal rights? If not, why this one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

46 minutes ago, Dystopia said:

This is a bad decision that was obviously politically motivated but let’s face it, how many voters that skipped out on 2016 are gonna come out to vote this year? My guess is not many. 

"Not many" is all it takes to win or lose an election.

Edited by Calamari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Stripping rights bit by bit: "well, technically, you still sort of have the right, but now you have to jump through this and that hoop..."

Pretty soon we will find a way to have everyone technically still have all their rights but the hoops they have to jump through to claim them will grow smaller and higher every time.

Edited by Calamari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, bmore_ken said:

If that's true, what's the problem then?

The problem with this is it’s completely unnecessary and very obviously politically motivated. I’d give it at least 8, possibly 10 years before being able to remove someone from the registration. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

30 minutes ago, ms maggie said:

Read the 15th amendment.

I've read it.  I'm sure you have too.  The difference is I (and so many others) understand it.

There is no constitutionally guaranteed federal right to vote.

http://www.fairvote.org/right_to_vote_faq

Quote

American adults living in states typically can vote, but they do not have a federally protected right to vote enshrined in the Constitution. States protect the right to vote to different degrees based on the state’s constitutional language and statutes. The federal government traditionally only steps in to prevent certain broad abuses, such as denying the right to vote based on race (15th Amendment), sex (19th Amendment), or age (26th Amendment).

https://www.vox.com/2014/10/20/6997315/voting-rights-amendment-affirmative-right-to-vote

Quote

But the fact that the legal, political, and constitutional arguments need to get pushed into a narrow racial discrimination frame is itself a symptom of the real problem: it's about time American citizens obtained a constitutional right to vote.

https://www.newsmax.com/fastfeatures/voting-rights-constitution-amendments/2015/11/15/id/702275/

Quote

The Center for Voting and Democracy noted that voting rights are not federally protected or guaranteed by the Constitution. In fact, Democracy Journal noted that the U.S. Supreme Court declared in Bush v. Gore that "[t]he individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States."

http://www.promoteourvote.com/constitutional-right-to-vote.html

Quote

Though voting is the most fundamental element of democracy, the United States is the only developed democracy that does not guarantee an affirmative right to vote in its constitution.  

Civics, sweetie! Pay attention!

Edited by SpiceGIrl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Calamari said:

"Not many" is all it takes to win or lose an election.

Melodramatic much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dystopia said:

Melodramatic much?

A tie in Virginia was recently settled by a coin toss.

Trump was elected by about the same number of people that it takes to fill Camden Yards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, hst2 said:

A tie in Virginia was recently settled by a coin toss.

Trump was elected by about the same number of people that it takes to fill Camden Yards.

Look I’m not saying this can’t impact elections. Just saying, people that haven’t voted in the past 6 years probably aren’t that engaged in the political process. Doubt anyone who voted in that House of Delegates race hadn’t voted in the past 6 years prior. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Dystopia said:

Look I’m not saying this can’t impact elections. Just saying, people that haven’t voted in the past 6 years probably aren’t that engaged in the political process. Doubt anyone who voted in that House of Delegates race hadn’t voted in the past 6 years prior. 

Exactly what I said. It's not really rocket science. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, SpiceGIrl said:

I've read it.  I'm sure you have too.  The difference is I (and so many others) understand it.

There is no constitutionally guaranteed federal right to vote.

http://www.fairvote.org/right_to_vote_faq

https://www.vox.com/2014/10/20/6997315/voting-rights-amendment-affirmative-right-to-vote

https://www.newsmax.com/fastfeatures/voting-rights-constitution-amendments/2015/11/15/id/702275/

http://www.promoteourvote.com/constitutional-right-to-vote.html

Civics, sweetie! Pay attention!

I believe you are wrong. Amendments to the Constitution are considered part of the Constitution. For example, if a state passed a law enacting any thing prohibited in the 15th, 24th, and 26th, the law would be thrown out as unconstitutional. 

Article 5 of the Constitution states:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/voting-rights-act

The Voting Rights Act of 1965, signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, aimed to overcome legal barriers at the state and local levels that prevented African Americans from exercising their right to vote as guaranteed under the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Voting Rights Act is considered one of the most far-reaching pieces of civil rights legislation in U.S. history.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-xv

Most Americans probably believe the “right to vote” is one of their most fundamental constitutional rights. It will come as a surprise, therefore, to learn that neither the original Constitution nor the Bill of Rights nor any other provision of the Constitution expressly guarantees the right to vote. Only in the 1960s, when the Supreme Court began to conclude that the Fourteenth Amendment implicitly protected the right to vote, did American constitutional doctrine begin to treat the right to vote as a fundamental constitutional right. Once the Court recognized the right to vote, decisions of the Supreme Court helped revolutionize the way voting was treated under American constitutional law. Most of the law concerning “the right to vote” developed under the Fourteenth Amendment, though important Court decisions also have relied at times on the Fifteenth Amendment.

the Fifteenth Amendment prohibits racial discrimination in the vote

the Twenty-Fourth Amendment prohibits the use of poll taxes in national elections

the Twenty-Sixth Amendment prohibits denying the vote to those over 18 years of age.

 

as you were saying about civics?.....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Dystopia said:

Look I’m not saying this can’t impact elections. Just saying, people that haven’t voted in the past 6 years probably aren’t that engaged in the political process. Doubt anyone who voted in that House of Delegates race hadn’t voted in the past 6 years prior. 

Nevertheless, it may only take a few.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

55 minutes ago, SpiceGIrl said:

I've read it.  I'm sure you have too.  The difference is I (and so many others) understand it.

There is no constitutionally guaranteed federal right to vote.

http://www.fairvote.org/right_to_vote_faq

https://www.vox.com/2014/10/20/6997315/voting-rights-amendment-affirmative-right-to-vote

https://www.newsmax.com/fastfeatures/voting-rights-constitution-amendments/2015/11/15/id/702275/

http://www.promoteourvote.com/constitutional-right-to-vote.html

Civics, sweetie! Pay attention!

Nonsense.

Is there a constitutionally guaranteed federal right of free speech? Strictly speaking, no. Certainly not an affirmative right. The first amendment prohibits the govt from abridging the right to free speech. The right itself is assumed, nowhere is it articulated.

Same with the right to vote and the 15th amendment, even the same term, "abridge".

Edited by ms maggie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

8 minutes ago, can you hear me now! said:

I believe you are wrong. Amendments to the Constitution are considered part of the Constitution. For example, if a state passed a law enacting any thing prohibited in the 15th, 24th, and 26th, the law would be thrown out as unconstitutional. 

Article 5 of the Constitution states:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/voting-rights-act

The Voting Rights Act of 1965, signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, aimed to overcome legal barriers at the state and local levels that prevented African Americans from exercising their right to vote as guaranteed under the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Voting Rights Act is considered one of the most far-reaching pieces of civil rights legislation in U.S. history.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-xv

Most Americans probably believe the “right to vote” is one of their most fundamental constitutional rights. It will come as a surprise, therefore, to learn that neither the original Constitution nor the Bill of Rights nor any other provision of the Constitution expressly guarantees the right to vote. Only in the 1960s, when the Supreme Court began to conclude that the Fourteenth Amendment implicitly protected the right to vote, did American constitutional doctrine begin to treat the right to vote as a fundamental constitutional right. Once the Court recognized the right to vote, decisions of the Supreme Court helped revolutionize the way voting was treated under American constitutional law. Most of the law concerning “the right to vote” developed under the Fourteenth Amendment, though important Court decisions also have relied at times on the Fifteenth Amendment.

the Fifteenth Amendment prohibits racial discrimination in the vote

the Twenty-Fourth Amendment prohibits the use of poll taxes in national elections

the Twenty-Sixth Amendment prohibits denying the vote to those over 18 years of age.

 

as you were saying about civics?.....

 

Damn, somebody just  got schooled hard. :lol::D

Edited by bmore_ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Progressives need to introduce a voting rights amendment. The whole process needs to be generalized and the whole process needs to be made easier. But get ready for anti ads showing Willie Horton voting.

He'll, forget the post cards, mail out the ballots and voters fill them in and send them back,send them back. Make a spot for "nobody".

Edited by hst2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, bmore_ken said:

Damn, somebody just  got schooled hard. :lol::D

Rule of thumb: posters who load their posts with text from links are normally fairly, uh....well let's say depth isn't a real strength.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0