That was the biggest WTF moment in that I just read.
I know that, and you know that, which, along with it being written in the Constitution (amendment or now) makes me wonder how John Roberts could not know that. Itâs a very disturbing comment on his part, because it goes to the heart of how our nation worksâŠif the SC has people on it that seek to deny the ability of the people to vote freely in elections we really are either screwed or require a new revolution.
2 Likes
Just donât see anyone else saying he said it. I
Under Ohioâs âSupplemental Procedure,â a voter who does not vote within a two-year period is sent a mailer asking her to confirm or amend her address.
I am very curious about the wording on the mailer. Do they mention that if there is not a confirmation returned the voter will be purged after years of non-voting? Or, do they just word it in a way that a lot of people might ignore it if their address had not changed?
6 Likes
Need to hear the oral argument but it seems that there is a line between a normal operational activity to keep voter rolls up to date and abuse for systematic purges that can be found. I think Breyer might be in a decent position to negotiate a deal because he recognizes that balance that needs to be struck.
1 Like
For a really good discussion of this case in detail and related matters regarding voter suppression I would recommend a Slate podcast called Amicus - the most recent one deals extensively with this case.
1 Like
The GOP passed that point long ago. GOP SoSs are very eager to purge registered voters not just based on strict name matches, but (in the case of Florida), any name thatâs close.
1 Like
That may be what SCOTUS thinks itâs doing, when actually itâs giving political parties the power to set the voting rolls. It isnât a representative process in any way, shape, or form.
The polling booth is not the place to establish a government checkpoint.
2 Likes
Either Tierney corrected the article, or weâve been missing a key word:
And he even questioned whether a person has the constitutional right not to vote, as Smith had suggested.
4 Likes
Surely a strict constructionist wouldnât ignore the plain language of the statute.
1 Like
Iâm finding it hard to get too worked up on this. Is it so wrong to assume that someone who hasnât voted for two presidential terms is no longer available to vote in a particular precinct? People really arenât losing their right to vote. But they must reĂ«stablish their registration in a particular precinct. I honestly think >8 years makes greater sense, but the concept is not without merit.
I think theyâll opt for the narrowest possible strikedown, because the facts reportedly include a bunch of counties not actually keeping records of the letters they sent out or the responses to those letters. And the discovery in the followon suit would involve way more white republicans taking the fifth amendment than the powers that be are comfortable with. (Because if youâre going to purge voters for nonvoting, doing it differentially by demographics would have really bad optics.)
There have been a number of comments asking âhow bad could it beâ? â six years is a long timeâ etc.
Making sure that voters can read also seems like a sensible, objective, non-partisan rest- until you understand the way literacy tests were implemented in the south and the way African Americans were systematically denied an education.
@tierney has done a good job tracking the players and showing that they have a long record of attempting to suppress the votes of their political opponents.
So we canât assume good faith. How could this system be abused?
Letâs say you live in a gerrymandered district. Your local congresscritter gets re-elected with 65-70 percent of the vote every time, and youâve got a double shift that day, so you sit that one out . Two years later youâve moved twice to nearby buildings cause the landlord is always jacking the rent.you miss the primaries (not competitive in your state) and on Election Day the line is two hours long. Your state is not that close and your feet are killing you, so you go home. Somewhere in the next couple of months a piece of mail comes (or maybe it doesnât). Itâs not a bill or a court summons so you skim it and bin it. Next time you turn up at the polls youâre told you canât vote.
1 Like
Which is exactly why the whole one notice thing is b.s. An actual good faith effort would involve multiple concerted attempts at contact, but then Republicans wouldnât recognize good faith if it was pissing on them in a hotel in Russia.
1 Like
Yup. Itâs all about masking malice with bureaucratic flannel. Itâs easy to read the regs and think about how to implement them fairly. These rules will be implemented by people who have no intention of being fair.
Writing mailings that are clear and generate a high response rate is hard. Itâs so easy to write a letter that doesnât really indicate what youâre supposed to do, maybe make the respondent look up the correct reply address for good measure- and definitely suppply their own envelope and stamp. Every hurdle will trip up a few more people. And every person arguing about why theyâre not on the list on Election Day just means more people who canât make it to the front of the line in the time they can spare to wait.
If we were actually worried about in-person voter fraud, weâd just use the indelible ink on our fingers like the Afghanis. If fraudsters need to recruit a new stooge for every vote they want to steal, itâs a lot harder to fly under the radar.
1 Like