SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

[SJHovey]

Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

How is it logical to take someone's registration away?

Why is it a requirement to vote just to be able to vote in the next election without re-registering?

How do you know that the lack of voting wasn't a problem with the polling stations? How can you be 100% sure that the problem is due to the voter and not something else?

WHY IS THE CORE ASSUMPTION THAT THE VOTER IS IN THE WRONG? Voting IS our right.

And since we can put some pretty drastic rules onto the 15th Amendment like that, why can't we do the same to the 2nd?????

I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that we need to have a basic registration process to vote, correct? I mean a state does have an interest in making sure you at least claim to be a resident of that state before you vote. Everyone dutifully follows that requirement because we know its the law.

If a state wanted, it could require everyone to re-register before every single election, again to satisfy itself that you claim to be a resident in that voting location. States don't do that because of the endless time and expense involved. So, they let the registrations stand.

But at some point we need to de-list some people. Should Ohio still have President James Garfield on its voter registration lists, even though he's been dead for 150 years? People move. People die. If the lists are to make any sense they should be relatively current.

I've had to re-register a few times, every time that I've moved. Again, I understood that was the law and I followed it. My right to vote wasn't taken away even though I was de-registered. The same with name changes.

If they don't know they were unregistered and show up and can't vote then yes, that's exactly what happened.

You're right. People who are lazy, stupid and uninformed (intentionally or otherwise) are going to get caught by this law. But they're also going to get caught by the general voter registration laws that already exist and that we all abide by.

Besides, if I'm to believe the screeds posted on this Board, it's the Republican electorate that is lazy, stupid and uninformed, so the Democrats should be fine.

As a postscript, I find it funny that some of our Minnesota posters are the ones up in arms over this decision. Did you know that in Minneapolis they de-register you if you haven't voted in the last four years?

http://vote.minneapolismn.gov/voters/register

 

[trixR4kids]

Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

You're right. People who are lazy, stupid and uninformed (intentionally or otherwise) are going to get caught by this law. But they're also going to get caught by the general voter registration laws that already exist and that we all abide by.

Besides, if I'm to believe the screeds posted on this Board, it's the Republican electorate that is lazy, stupid and uninformed, so the Democrats should be fine.

As a postscript, I find it funny that some of our Minnesota posters are the ones up in arms over this decision. Did you know that in Minneapolis they de-register you if you haven't voted in the last four years?

http://vote.minneapolismn.gov/voters/register

And you know we have same day voter registration which makes this a moot point right?

Look we know why you cynically support this and other voter registration, no need to try and hide it and pretend like this is somehow a good thing. Republicans don't want anything that remotely resembles a democracy.

 

[unofan]

Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

6 years seems like a long time, but let's think this through.

Lots of people, rightly or wrongly, only vote in presidential elections. So let's say someone voted in 2012 for Obama. They skipped 2014 (and all random municipal votes in the interim, too). There's the two year window to trigger the notice. They ignore the notice, if they ever got it, because nothing will happen for four years so why respond now.

They then bought into the giant turd vs shiat sandwich spin for 2016, so they skip that election. They now skip 2018 because they only care about presidential elections. There's your six years. Ohio will now drop them from the voter registration rolls.

To the best of my knowledge, Ohio doesn't send any further follow-up that this occurred. The only mail sent out was the 2-year notice in 2014.

That person likely won't know they aren't registered to vote until they show up on election day 2020. And since Ohio isn't one of the 11 states with same day registration, that voter is SOL.

 

[trixR4kids]

Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

6 years seems like a long time, but let's think this through.

Lots of people, rightly or wrongly, only vote in presidential elections. So let's say someone voted in 2012 for Obama. They skipped 2014 (and all random municipal votes in the interim, too). There's the two year window to trigger the notice. They ignore the notice, if they ever got it, because nothing will happen for four years so why respond now.

They then bought into the giant turd vs shiat sandwich spin for 2016, so they skip that election. They now skip 2018 because they only care about presidential elections. There's your six years. Ohio will now drop them from the voter registration rolls.

To the best of my knowledge, Ohio doesn't send any further follow-up that this occurred. The only mail sent out was the 2-year notice in 2014.

That person likely won't know they aren't registered to vote until they show up on election day 2020. And since Ohio isn't one of the 11 states with same day registration, that voter is SOL.

Yeah but this is good because they were "lazy" do you see!? Cletus on the other hand who isn't lazy and voted for Roy Moore on his straight Republican ticket wasn't lazy and we deeply value his opinion.

In all seriousness if I lived in OH I might've been one of the people who got affected by this if it were a few years ago. I didn't think I was able to vote in 2014 (I think it was) because I was living with roommates and wasn't on the lease technically nor did I have a utility bill in my name (person I lived with handled all that stuff). I also had my WI driver's license I think and so I just didn't vote in that one. Since I had moved back to WI I would've been removed under OH rules.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

6 years seems like a long time, but let's think this through.

Lots of people, rightly or wrongly, only vote in presidential elections. So let's say someone voted in 2012 for Obama. They skipped 2014 (and all random municipal votes in the interim, too). There's the two year window to trigger the notice. They ignore the notice, if they ever got it, because nothing will happen for four years so why respond now.

They then bought into the giant turd vs shiat sandwich spin for 2016, so they skip that election. They now skip 2018 because they only care about presidential elections. There's your six years. Ohio will now drop them from the voter registration rolls.

To the best of my knowledge, Ohio doesn't send any further follow-up that this occurred. The only mail sent out was the 2-year notice in 2014.

That person likely won't know they aren't registered to vote until they show up on election day 2020. And since Ohio isn't one of the 11 states with same day registration, that voter is SOL.

But aren't all of these scenarios based upon an assumption that people don't know when they voted, or what the law is?

If I'm ignorant that the law even requires me to register to vote in the first place, and I show up on election day in a state where there isn't same day registration, aren't I out of luck, and isn't that primarily due to my failure to even try to find out what is necessary to vote in that state?

Isn't that the same thing here? If I know the law requires me to re-register to vote if I haven't voted in 6 years, aren't I just going to go down and register? It's like if I know the law requires me to re-register to vote because I changed my name when I got married.

 

[alfablue]

Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that we need to have a basic registration process to vote, correct? I mean a state does have an interest in making sure you at least claim to be a resident of that state before you vote. Everyone dutifully follows that requirement because we know its the law.

If a state wanted, it could require everyone to re-register before every single election, again to satisfy itself that you claim to be a resident in that voting location. States don't do that because of the endless time and expense involved. So, they let the registrations stand.

But at some point we need to de-list some people. Should Ohio still have President James Garfield on its voter registration lists, even though he's been dead for 150 years? People move. People die. If the lists are to make any sense they should be relatively current.

I've had to re-register a few times, every time that I've moved. Again, I understood that was the law and I followed it. My right to vote wasn't taken away even though I was de-registered. The same with name changes.

You're right. People who are lazy, stupid and uninformed (intentionally or otherwise) are going to get caught by this law. But they're also going to get caught by the general voter registration laws that already exist and that we all abide by.

Besides, if I'm to believe the screeds posted on this Board, it's the Republican electorate that is lazy, stupid and uninformed, so the Democrats should be fine.

As a postscript, I find it funny that some of our Minnesota posters are the ones up in arms over this decision. Did you know that in Minneapolis they de-register you if you haven't voted in the last four years?

http://vote.minneapolismn.gov/voters/register

Ok, so you justified that restriction added to the 15th. That means you are ok with adding restrictions to the 2nd then? It's just as logical.

And instead of making up voter fraud excuses, there is actual evidence that there is huge amount of gun violence that can be curbed by similar restrictions to voter registration and voter purging.

 

[Kepler]

Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Election Day Registration should be universal to protect the right to vote. If the state feels it has to maintain voter rolls then the burden should be on the state to ensure that everybody who is allowed to vote can vote.

Alternately, always let everyone vote and then the burden is on the state to cancel votes later if they have proof of fraud.

There's only one reason we don't insist upon this: this country has always had a deep antipathy towards voting by the Poors. TPTB do not want the majority of the people in this country to have a voice, because that would endanger the stranglehold the 1% has on policy.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Personally, I'm in favor of same day registration and I'm not looking to make it hard for people to register to vote. I think it should be easy, but we should at least require that registration.

I also think it's appropriate to require re-registration if you move, for obvious reasons, or if you've changed your name.

Finally, I don't think it's inappropriate for a state to want to clean up its voter registration lists to remove people who are dead or who have moved, etc...

To me, the whole debate is really about how long is the appropriate period. I don't know that four years (Minneapolis) or six years (Ohio) is correct. I'm not sure how long is correct, but that's really a policy decision of a state weighing the cost of having to re-register a bunch of voters who are still around versus the cost of keeping a registration list filled with names of the dead or departed.

 

[trixR4kids]

Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

But aren't all of these scenarios based upon an assumption that people don't know when they voted, or what the law is?

If I'm ignorant that the law even requires me to register to vote in the first place, and I show up on election day in a state where there isn't same day registration, aren't I out of luck, and isn't that primarily due to my failure to even try to find out what is necessary to vote in that state?

Isn't that the same thing here? If I know the law requires me to re-register to vote if I haven't voted in 6 years, aren't I just going to go down and register? It's like if I know the law requires me to re-register to vote because I changed my name when I got married.

Why not just make it easier to vote? What exactly is the downside? Instead of doing this contortion act to justify making it harder for people to exercise their constitutional right to vote and blaming them for past choices.

 

[Kepler]

Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Ok, so you justified that restriction added to the 15th. That means you are ok with adding restrictions to the 2nd then?

Beat me to it.

 

[alfablue]

Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Election Day Registration should be universal to protect the right to vote. If the state feels it has to maintain voter rolls then the burden should be on the state to ensure that everybody who is allowed to vote can vote.

There's only one reason we don't insist upon this: this country has always had a deep antipathy towards voting by the Poors. TPTB do not want the majority of the people in this country to have a voice, because that would endanger the stranglehold the 1% has on policy.

WRT the poor, it's pretty sad that few see the required ID that you have to PAY for so that you can vote as a poll tax.

So more and more restrictions on the 15th, and we keep going along, with the 2nd, killing people left and right. Duh.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Ok, so you justified that restriction added to the 15th. That means you are ok with adding restrictions to the 2nd then? It's just as logical.

And instead of making up voter fraud excuses, there is actual evidence that there is huge amount of gun violence that can be curbed by similar restrictions to voter registration and voter purging.

Every time I've purchased a gun it's been registered using ATF FORM 4473, and I've had no objection to that at all.

 

[unofan]

But aren't all of these scenarios based upon an assumption that people don't know when they voted, or what the law is?

If I'm ignorant that the law even requires me to register to vote in the first place, and I show up on election day in a state where there isn't same day registration, aren't I out of luck, and isn't that primarily due to my failure to even try to find out what is necessary to vote in that state?

Isn't that the same thing here? If I know the law requires me to re-register to vote if I haven't voted in 6 years, aren't I just going to go down and register? It's like if I know the law requires me to re-register to vote because I changed my name when I got married.

Considering federal law specifically says to make voting registration as easy as possible, no, it's not the same.

Affirmatively de-registering someone with extremely little notice is not the same as requiring them to register in the first place.

There's a reason only red states want to do this type of thing.

 

[Kepler]

Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

WRT the poor, it's pretty sad that few see the required ID that you have to PAY for so that you can vote as a poll tax.

So more and more restrictions on the 15th, and we keep going along, with the 2nd, killing people left and right. Duh.

We could have fixed that with a free universal national ID card that every state is forced to accept. It's a simple solution. It would assuage the tiny amount of sincere worry about fraud and expose the broad GOP thrust to suppress voting by antagonistic groups.

And that is why it will ever happen unless we get a clean sweep of all branches and a supermajority in Congress.

And that is why we need a clean sweep of all branches and a supermajority in Congress.

That actually an interesting thought experiment: someday -- in ten years or a hundred -- we will have that, just purely statistically. What should have have in the hopper, waiting?

My list, with 5 seconds of thought:

0. Universal same day registration and a free national ID provided by the federal government to every American that must be accepted everywhere.

1. Restoration of true progressive taxation (e.g., 0 from 0-25th income percentile, then x-1% for 26-99th percentile) with no exemptions, deductions, or exceptions.

2. Annual wealth tax. 10% on everything over 100x the median national wealth; all assets considered, no exceptions.

3. Constitutional amendment specifically rejecting the myth that spending is protected speech and stating that reasonable measures to prevent the power of wealth from corrupting democracy are constitutional.

 

[unofan]

To me, the whole debate is really about how long is the appropriate period. I don't know that four years (Minneapolis) or six years (Ohio) is correct. I'm not sure how long is correct, but that's really a policy decision of a state weighing the cost of having to re-register a bunch of voters who are still around versus the cost of keeping a registration list filled with names of the dead or departed.

No, the debate is that Ohio is trying to remove occasional voters from its rolls with as little notice as possible because it's most likely to affect Democratic voters.

If Ohio had same day registration, the issue would be moot because the person could still vote. But it doesn't, so they don't get any benefit of the doubt that it's just about cleaning up their rolls.

 

[trixR4kids]

Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

We could have fixed that with a free universal national ID card that every state is forced to accept. It's a simple solution. It would assuage the tiny amount of sincere worry about fraud and expose the broad GOP thrust to suppress voting by antagonistic groups.

And that is why it will ever happen unless we get a clean sweep of all branches and a supermajority in Congress.

And that is why we need a clean sweep of all branches and a supermajority in Congress.

Of course, the fact that Obama didn't do this when he had the chance...

 

[trixR4kids]

Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

No, the debate is that Ohio is trying to remove occasional voters from its rolls with as little notice as possible because it's most likely to affect Democratic voters.

If Ohio had same day registration, the issue would be moot because the person could still vote. But it doesn't, so they don't get any benefit of the doubt that it's just about cleaning up their rolls.

Also is there any evidence that cleaning up the rolls saves more money than it costs to leave them on?

 

[SJHovey]

Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

There's a reason only red states want to do this type of thing.

As noted in the link I posted earlier, and re-post here, apparently Minneapolis only gives you four years.

http://vote.minneapolismn.gov/voters/register

 

[St. Clown]

Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Just stop. No one’s right to vote has been taken away. That’s like saying that an 18 year old, or someone who moves, or someone who changes their name has had their right taken from them. It’s still there.

It’s illogical to think states have to keep you on the registration rolls in perpetuity, so all we are really debating is how long should they wait.

If this is the go-forward process, the State needs to start a mass mailer program. It will need to send a post card explaining to everyone that if you've not voted within the past X years, you will need to re-register to vote in the upcoming election. All eligible voters need to be notified because not all people follow the news the way we do here.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

No, the debate is that Ohio is trying to remove occasional voters from its rolls with as little notice as possible because it's most likely to affect Democratic voters.

Why do you always assume it's Democrat voters most likely to be affected by this? Are Democrats the most likely to be ignorant of the law? Are Democrats most likely to ignore their mail? Are Democrats most likely to have skipped voting the last 6 years?

According to Kep it's the Republican voters who are the illiterate orcs, barely evolved from the goop that emerged from the primordial stew. This law should work in your favor.