ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 11th June 2018, 05:32 PM   #41
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 18,034
Originally Posted by logger View Post
It is so much easier to vote today then it’s ever been.
No it is not. That depends very much where you live. It's pretty easy in Washington State. It isn't in Ohio or Florida or Alabama or Texas or Mississippi and a few other places. Purging voter roles is just one example of electoral fraud. Why shouldn't you be registered for life? Why does someone show up at the polls with proper ID be told 'Sorry, you cant vote'?
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 05:32 PM   #42
Cabbage
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 407
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Lol, a homeless person, really, should they even be allowed to vote? Why is it that a person who is completely dependent on society should even have a vote. But really! How many homeless people do you think vote? Why she we make our voting system so wide open to fraud that some bum can just walk off the street to cast a vote. That is truly where the dems are.


Because we shouldn’t be so quick to allow the stupid (democrat low information voters) to vote.


They’re voting their loser asses a government check, we know who they’ll vote for. Of course the dems need the vote so they can once again try and stay in power dishonestly.
............

Originally Posted by logger View Post
Any poor person can vote and should vote, nothing is stopping that.
LOL. Make up your mind already.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 05:40 PM   #43
ChristianProgressive
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,735
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Then register!
Then make it simple and easy to register.

Quote:
Then register!
Then stop passing laws that put obstacles in the way.


Quote:
They would be the ones being robbed.
Taxes =/= theft.
__________________
"As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man." - Matthew 24:37

"And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh." - Luke 21:28
ChristianProgressive is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 05:53 PM   #44
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 15,564
Before you get your panties all bunched up, you might like to hear that in fact, Ohio's law is designed specifically to conform to the federal requirements of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.

Quote:
(d) REMOVAL OF NAMES FROM VOTING ROLLS
-
(1) A State shall not remove the name of a registrant from the official list of eligible voters in elections for Federal office on the ground that the registrant has changed residence unless the registrant--
(A) confirms in writing that the registrant has changed residence to a place
outside the registrar's jurisdiction in which the registrant is registered; or
(B) (i) has failed to respond to a notice described in paragraph (2); and
(ii) has not voted or appeared to vote (and, if necessary, correct the registrar's record of the registrant's address) in an election during the period beginning on the date of the notice and ending on the day after the date of the second general election for Federal office that occurs after the date of the notice.
Which is exactly what Ohio has been doing. The law was passed in the first year of Bill Clinton's first term, when the Democrats had control of the White House, Senate and House of Representatives.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

Last edited by Brainster; 11th June 2018 at 05:56 PM.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 06:17 PM   #45
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
 
Shalamar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,289
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Can't get it figured out? No empathy for others. What is easy and routine for most of us is very difficult for others and society keeps making it harder.
And Jesus did say: "LOL! Forget the poor and the downtrodden, they are loser leftists!'

Thus sayeth the 'Righteous Right'tm
__________________

"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."
Shalamar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 06:43 PM   #46
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 18,034
Originally Posted by Shalamar View Post
And Jesus did say: "LOL! Forget the poor and the downtrodden, they are loser leftists!'

Thus sayeth the 'Righteous Right'tm
I think that was from the Sermon on the Mount.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 09:12 PM   #47
DevilsAdvocate
Illuminator
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,836
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
And I certainly can't imagine how such a law could be unconstitutional. I doubt I'll read this particular Supreme Court opinion, but I can't see how four justices would say that it violates the constitution. If someone could give a couple of sentences of summary about why that might be, it might pique my interest enough to pursue it, but for the moment I can't imagine what provision of the constitution it supposedly violated.
It is not really a Constitutional issue. It is at the Supreme Court because it is a question of whether a State is in compliance with Federal law. It is a matter of interpretation of the Federal law. The problem is that the law is very clearly. It will take more than a couple sentences to explain.

The law in question is codified under 52 USC 20507 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/20507

Subsection (a)(4) says a State will make a reasonable effort to remove ineligible voters. Subsection (b) says a State cannot remove a voter from registration due to failure to vote, unless the person has not voted in the last two Federal election after being sent a notice. The notice in question is referenced in subsections (c) and (d). Subsection (d) also says that a State will not remove a voter unless the person has failed to respond to the notice and then not voted in the next two Federal Elections. That notice is defined in (d)(2) as a notice sent to the registrant to verify or update their address.

With me so far? It is confusing. You might have to draw out a diagram.

The argument is that (b) and (d) are contradictory. Subsection (b) says a person can’t be removed for not voting, but (d) says a person can as long as they have been sent a notice.

I disagree. The subsections are not contradictory. This argument also ignores subsection (c) that says the State program to eliminate registration must use the Postal Service to identify people who have moved.

Here’s how it works:

Subsection (a) says that a State will conduct a program to remove ineligible voters who have moved. To see how that works, we skip to (c).

Subsection (c) says that a State will meet the requirements in (a) by getting information from the Postal Service that indicates that a registrant has moved. If the Postal Service provides that information and the registration is out of their current jurisdiction, we skip to (d).

Subsection (d) says that a State will not remove a registrant due to a change of address (as identified in (c)) unless they send a notice and the person does not respond and does not vote in the next two Federal elections.

So the process is that if the Postal Service provides the State with information indicating that someone has moved out of the jurisdiction where they are registered, then the State send a notice and if the person does not return the notice and does not vote in the next two Federal elections, then the person may be removed.

That leaves us with the pesky subsection (b). Why is that there? Subsection (b) is only there to say that a State cannot remove a person for failing to vote. Of course (d) has a condition where a removal could be based in part on failure to vote (if the Postal Service indicates the person has moved and the person does not respond to the notice) so (b) has to have a clause to allow that condition.

When read correctly, the law has no contradictions, no ignored sections, and is consistent with the stated intent of Congress. In fact, I appears (b) was added to prevent a State from doing exactly what Ohio is doing.

(I have not read through everything yet, so there may be other issues, but that appears to be the meat of it.)
__________________
Heaven forbid someone reads these words and claims to be adversely affected by them, thus ensuring a barrage of lawsuits filed under the guise of protecting the unknowing victims who were stupid enough to read this and believe it! - Kevin Trudeau

Last edited by DevilsAdvocate; 11th June 2018 at 09:14 PM.
DevilsAdvocate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 09:18 PM   #48
ChristianProgressive
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,735
The state should have to make an affirmative case with proof before removing a voter.
__________________
"As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man." - Matthew 24:37

"And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh." - Luke 21:28
ChristianProgressive is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 09:25 PM   #49
This is The End
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,414
There is only one piece of information anyone needs to know about this case.

The study found that it would affect 3 to 4 times as many Democrats as Republicans.

Once that is known all other supposed "pros" should be immediately ignored.

There should be no "pro", or even one thousand "pros", that can possibly trump that "con".

And I would be saying the same thing if a law was proposed that affected 3 to 4 times as many Republicans as Democrats.
__________________
________________________
This is The End is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 09:28 PM   #50
Norman Alexander
Master Poster
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,779
What a bunch of bullcrap about something with a remarkably easy solution: Make voting compulsory; keep a national register of voters.

If you are over 18 (or 21 or whatever it is in the USA), you must vote until the day you die. Exceptions: Where the law says you cannot - aliens, jailbirds, insanity, etc. As long as you can adequately identify yourself, you should be able to register as a voter anywhere in the USA on a federal roll. If you change your electorate, simply notify the federal register. Come voting time, you must turn up, identify yourself to the polling station on the federal roll, then vote. Alternatively, perform a legal mail-in vote. No-one can legally stop you from voting. In fact, if they try to take your name off the roll while you are still permitted to vote, or prevent you from attending a polling station, or in any way hinder your action of voting, they can be severely punished.

Oh, but you don't want to vote - no candidate you like? Submit a blank or invalid ballot...by any legal voting method open to you. You cannot be admonished for submitting null vote. Too lazy to do that? Then simply don't vote. No fine involved.

So how is this better? It won't matter if you die alone in your desert caravan and your cats eat you. Until someone finds your stinking remains and notifies of your death, you will always be able to vote. None of this nasty party-based roll-purging shenanigans.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 09:32 PM   #51
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,520
Originally Posted by This is The End View Post
There is only one piece of information anyone needs to know about this case.

The study found that it would affect 3 to 4 times as many Democrats as Republicans.

Once that is known all other supposed "pros" should be immediately ignored.

There should be no "pro", or even one thousand "pros", that can possibly trump that "con".

And I would be saying the same thing if a law was proposed that affected 3 to 4 times as many Republicans as Democrats.
Why?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 09:33 PM   #52
logger
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
Originally Posted by This is The End View Post
There is only one piece of information anyone needs to know about this case.

The study found that it would affect 3 to 4 times as many Democrats as Republicans.

Once that is known all other supposed "pros" should be immediately ignored.

There should be no "pro", or even one thousand "pros", that can possibly trump that "con".

And I would be saying the same thing if a law was proposed that affected 3 to 4 times as many Republicans as Democrats.
Is that because the democrats own the stupid vote?

Can’t you admit it’s pretty easy to register?
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 09:36 PM   #53
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,520
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Is that because the democrats own the stupid vote?

Can’t you admit it’s pretty easy to register?
Voter registration has no intrinsic definition of easy. We would have to establish principles over what would be too difficult and test against it.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 09:38 PM   #54
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 28,455
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Lol, a homeless person, really, should they even be allowed to vote? Why is it that a person who is completely dependent on society should even have a vote.
What? No. This is wrong. It is bad, immoral.

This is the most literally fascist thing I have read on this forum. I denounce it, and I denounce you.

I want to make it absolutely clear that you do not represent my politics in any way, shape, or form.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 09:41 PM   #55
logger
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
What? No. This is wrong. It is bad, immoral.

This is the most literally fascist thing I have read on this forum. I denounce it, and I denounce you.

I want to make it absolutely clear that you do not represent my politics in any way, shape, or form.


I don’t think anyone who doesn’t at least file taxes should be allowed to vote. As politicians make the tax paying pool smaller and smaller, the country goes further and further to the left. So you can denounce all you like I couldn’t care less. I’m sick and tired of people voting themselves a check.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 10:13 PM   #56
ChristianProgressive
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,735
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Why?
Because every citizen has an equal right to have a voice in our government via their vote.
__________________
"As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man." - Matthew 24:37

"And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh." - Luke 21:28
ChristianProgressive is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 10:15 PM   #57
Cabbage
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 407
Originally Posted by logger View Post
I’m sick and tired of people voting themselves a check.
Really? It doesn't seem to bother you when rich Republicans do it. LOL
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 10:19 PM   #58
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,520
Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive View Post
Because every citizen has an equal right to have a voice in our government via their vote.
Why?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 10:29 PM   #59
ChristianProgressive
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,735
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Is that because the democrats own the stupid vote?

Can’t you admit it’s pretty easy to register?
http://www.newsweek.com/voter-id-law...-states-582405

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...972_story.html

http://digg.com/2016/voting-trust-election-machines
__________________
"As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man." - Matthew 24:37

"And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh." - Luke 21:28
ChristianProgressive is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 10:29 PM   #60
Polaris
Penultimate Amazing
 
Polaris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,229
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Why?
What are you, three?
__________________
"There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar

"Let your ears hear this beautiful song that's hiding underneath the sound," Ed Kowalczyk.
Polaris is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 10:35 PM   #61
ChristianProgressive
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,735
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Why?
Because it is their right. And don't give me that "it's not in the Constitution" crap. The right to vote is mentioned in five different places.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national...vilege/262511/
__________________
"As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man." - Matthew 24:37

"And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh." - Luke 21:28
ChristianProgressive is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 10:36 PM   #62
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,520
Originally Posted by Polaris View Post
What are you, three?
While it is something I'm curious about, it isn't necessary to this question....

How is it established that the policy violates "equal right to have a voice"?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 10:51 PM   #63
ChristianProgressive
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,735
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
While it is something I'm curious about, it isn't necessary to this question....

How is it established that the policy violates "equal right to have a voice"?
The point was that logger was trying to maintain that if you were homeless, or if you received government assistance, that you should not be allowed to vote, which violates the 14th Amendemnt's equal protection requirements.

All citizens have rights, and the same right to have a say in how they are governed.
__________________
"As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man." - Matthew 24:37

"And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh." - Luke 21:28
ChristianProgressive is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 10:54 PM   #64
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,520
Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive View Post
The point was that logger was trying to maintain that if you were homeless, or if you received government assistance, that you should not be allowed to vote, which violates the 14th Amendemnt's equal protection requirements.

All citizens have rights, and the same right to have a say in how they are governed.
My question was not in response to a logger post. It was specifically about a policy affecting a political party more than another.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 11:23 PM   #65
logger
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive View Post
The point was that logger was trying to maintain that if you were homeless, or if you received government assistance, that you should not be allowed to vote
Not necessarily. If you’re homeless but have the Id or documentation, you can easily vote. Same with anyone else laying on the wagon. My point is, what happens when there is so few people paying taxes and so many taking? Of course it will be too late then.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 11:30 PM   #66
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 15,564
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
What? No. This is wrong. It is bad, immoral.

This is the most literally fascist thing I have read on this forum. I denounce it, and I denounce you.

I want to make it absolutely clear that you do not represent my politics in any way, shape, or form.
There are some legitimate problems with allowing the homeless to vote, but I agree that dependence on society should not be one. In federal elections it's not much of an issue, but in local and House of Representatives elections how do you determine which district the person belongs to? Last known address? The current place they are camping?

As a practical matter it's not a significant issue; I assume very very few homeless vote. But clearing the rolls of people who no longer can vote is a a worthwhile goal to ensure integrity in elections.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

Last edited by Brainster; 11th June 2018 at 11:33 PM.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 11:41 PM   #67
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 15,564
Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
It is not really a Constitutional issue. It is at the Supreme Court because it is a question of whether a State is in compliance with Federal law. It is a matter of interpretation of the Federal law. The problem is that the law is very clearly. It will take more than a couple sentences to explain.

The law in question is codified under 52 USC 20507 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/20507

Subsection (a)(4) says a State will make a reasonable effort to remove ineligible voters. Subsection (b) says a State cannot remove a voter from registration due to failure to vote, unless the person has not voted in the last two Federal election after being sent a notice. The notice in question is referenced in subsections (c) and (d). Subsection (d) also says that a State will not remove a voter unless the person has failed to respond to the notice and then not voted in the next two Federal Elections. That notice is defined in (d)(2) as a notice sent to the registrant to verify or update their address.

With me so far? It is confusing. You might have to draw out a diagram.

The argument is that (b) and (d) are contradictory. Subsection (b) says a person can’t be removed for not voting, but (d) says a person can as long as they have been sent a notice.

I disagree. The subsections are not contradictory. This argument also ignores subsection (c) that says the State program to eliminate registration must use the Postal Service to identify people who have moved.

Here’s how it works:

Subsection (a) says that a State will conduct a program to remove ineligible voters who have moved. To see how that works, we skip to (c).

Subsection (c) says that a State will meet the requirements in (a) by getting information from the Postal Service that indicates that a registrant has moved. If the Postal Service provides that information and the registration is out of their current jurisdiction, we skip to (d).

Subsection (d) says that a State will not remove a registrant due to a change of address (as identified in (c)) unless they send a notice and the person does not respond and does not vote in the next two Federal elections.

So the process is that if the Postal Service provides the State with information indicating that someone has moved out of the jurisdiction where they are registered, then the State send a notice and if the person does not return the notice and does not vote in the next two Federal elections, then the person may be removed.

That leaves us with the pesky subsection (b). Why is that there? Subsection (b) is only there to say that a State cannot remove a person for failing to vote. Of course (d) has a condition where a removal could be based in part on failure to vote (if the Postal Service indicates the person has moved and the person does not respond to the notice) so (b) has to have a clause to allow that condition.

When read correctly, the law has no contradictions, no ignored sections, and is consistent with the stated intent of Congress. In fact, I appears (b) was added to prevent a State from doing exactly what Ohio is doing.

(I have not read through everything yet, so there may be other issues, but that appears to be the meat of it.)
Yes, that is my reading as well. The VRA of 1993 reads very much like the intention was to cut down on voter roll purges for not voting. But at the same time, that (D) reads almost like a "safe harbor" for the states. Granted, safe harbors are usually written in a positive fashion--that is, if you do A, B and C then you are not breaking the law. This one is written in a negative fashion--you can't purge voters from the rolls for failing to vote unless you do the specific things that Ohio's law requires.

The Democrats didn't like voter roll purges so they made a fairly strict requirement for states to conform to before purging for not voting. Unfortunately for them they did not make it strict enough, and Ohio jumped through the hoops. Seriously, I cannot imagine a solid argument the other way, other than the usual moaning that this uniquely affects Democrats.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

Last edited by Brainster; 11th June 2018 at 11:50 PM.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2018, 12:08 AM   #68
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 11,754
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Yes, that is my reading as well. The VRA of 1993 reads very much like the intention was to cut down on voter roll purges for not voting. But at the same time, that (D) reads almost like a "safe harbor" for the states. Granted, safe harbors are usually written in a positive fashion--that is, if you do A, B and C then you are not breaking the law. This one is written in a negative fashion--you can't purge voters from the rolls for failing to vote unless you do the specific things that Ohio's law requires.

The Democrats didn't like voter roll purges so they made a fairly strict requirement for states to conform to before purging for not voting. Unfortunately for them they did not make it strict enough, and Ohio jumped through the hoops. Seriously, I cannot imagine a solid argument the other way, other than the usual moaning that this uniquely affects Democrats.
Do you think it's a coincidence that it affects likely Democratic voters to a much higher degree than Republican voters, and that Republicans are the ones pushing this and Democrats the ones opposing it?
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

Last edited by uke2se; 12th June 2018 at 12:09 AM.
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2018, 12:57 AM   #69
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 15,564
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
Do you think it's a coincidence that it affects likely Democratic voters to a much higher degree than Republican voters, and that Republicans are the ones pushing this and Democrats the ones opposing it?
There is an argument there, but it is not relevant to determining what the law is. Congress said thou shalt not unless you do x, y and z. Ohio did x, y and z, and opened the door to thou mayest.

And honestly, the courts should not be looking at the potential partisan impacts of the decisions they make. Remember, Ginsburg will probably have to retire sometime soon and odds are good that Trump will get to name her successor.

Look at the Ohio law in terms of the federal one, and the decision seems really clear. The majority of the Supremes were reading the law and the minority were reading the tea leaves of the argument that this disproportionately impacts the Democrats. Oddly enough they are not yet a protected class.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2018, 01:01 AM   #70
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 11,754
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
There is an argument there, but it is not relevant to determining what the law is. Congress said thou shalt not unless you do x, y and z. Ohio did x, y and z, and opened the door to thou mayest.

And honestly, the courts should not be looking at the potential partisan impacts of the decisions they make. Remember, Ginsburg will probably have to retire sometime soon and odds are good that Trump will get to name her successor.

Look at the Ohio law in terms of the federal one, and the decision seems really clear. The majority of the Supremes were reading the law and the minority were reading the tea leaves of the argument that this disproportionately impacts the Democrats. Oddly enough they are not yet a protected class.
That's a very partisan way of looking at this.

What I see when I look at it is a party finding loopholes in law that allows them to gain an unfair advantage on their opponents, thus cementing their rule. This is a mortal blow to democracy. The Supreme court should serve as a counter-weight to partisan power grabs, but as it has been thoroughly politicized, it clearly doesn't.

I expect the US to drop further in the democracy index. A flawed democracy right now, swiftly sliding towards authoritarianism.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2018, 01:02 AM   #71
DevilsAdvocate
Illuminator
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,836
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Yes, that is my reading as well. The VRA of 1993 reads very much like the intention was to cut down on voter roll purges for not voting. But at the same time, that (D) reads almost like a "safe harbor" for the states. Granted, safe harbors are usually written in a positive fashion--that is, if you do A, B and C then you are not breaking the law. This one is written in a negative fashion--you can't purge voters from the rolls for failing to vote unless you do the specific things that Ohio's law requires.
That (d) only reads that way if you ignore (c). And if you ignore (c), then (b) becomes contradictory, which is what Ohio argued. And if you accept that, the law is in opposition to the stated intent of Congress.

On the other hand, by my interpretation, there is no contradiction, there are no irrelevant subsections, and there is consistency with Congressional intent.

Subsection (d) was only intended as a “safe harbor” to the extent that it complied with (c), which requires that the State first receive information form the Postal Service indicating that a person had moved. Ohio, on the other hand, argues that they can ignore (c) and simply assume that someone has moved without any indication from the Postal Service. That ignores (c), creates a contradiction of (b), and goes against Congressional intent.

Note that (b) says that a voter cannot be removed for failure to vote except under procedures (c) AND (d). Not (c) OR (d). Both must be met.

It is a “negative” law. It says a State cannot remove someone from the register for not voting unless:

(c)(1)(B)(ii) the Postal Service has provided information indicating that the person has moved out of the jurisdiction

AND

(d)(1) the State has established a ground that the registrant has changed residence (required by (c)(1)(B)(ii))

AND

(d)(1)(B)(i) the registrant failed to respond to a notice (described in (d)(2)

AND

(d)(1)(B)(ii) has not voted in the last two Federal elections since the notice was sent

All of those conditions must be met. Subsection (b) says a voter cannot be removed for failure to vote unless (c) and (d). Subsection (c) requires that the State receive information from the Postal Service indicating that the person has moved. If that condition is not met, then (b) applies and the person cannot be removed.
__________________
Heaven forbid someone reads these words and claims to be adversely affected by them, thus ensuring a barrage of lawsuits filed under the guise of protecting the unknowing victims who were stupid enough to read this and believe it! - Kevin Trudeau
DevilsAdvocate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2018, 02:32 AM   #72
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 38,605
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
There is an argument there, but it is not relevant to determining what the law is. Congress said thou shalt not unless you do x, y and z. Ohio did x, y and z, and opened the door to thou mayest.

And honestly, the courts should not be looking at the potential partisan impacts of the decisions they make. Remember, Ginsburg will probably have to retire sometime soon and odds are good that Trump will get to name her successor.

Look at the Ohio law in terms of the federal one, and the decision seems really clear. The majority of the Supremes were reading the law and the minority were reading the tea leaves of the argument that this disproportionately impacts the Democrats. Oddly enough they are not yet a protected class.
And, oddly enough, they should be! It's not Democrats, per se... it's "Voters". Any program that only seeks to trim the voting roles and not increase them or improve on the situation should be fought on First Amendment grounds. By filing these cases on the narrow focus of the VRA, they're making a mistake.

Let Ohio first prove that they are solving a problem, not a conservative wet dream. Then, as someone mentioned above, make voting mandatory. You can go in and spoil your ballot if you don't want to vote for either party or the alternate selections, but you show up with YOUR NATIONAL ID and you vote.

Yes, we have the groundwork. Everyone in the country is issued a Social Security number at birth, now. Expand that to a national ID. It works in dozens of other countries, why are Americans too stupid to figure it out?

When ID is readily available and not just available if a bunch of NGOs spend money and organize the disenfranchised, then you can clean your voter roles however you want. First, make the process even-handed, though.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2018, 03:38 AM   #73
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 38,605
Someone feed me some oxygen, I'm going in.... Fox & Friends. Someone's gotta do it.

Wrong thread - I thought I was in the Kim/Trump Summit thread.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.

Last edited by Foolmewunz; 12th June 2018 at 03:51 AM.
Foolmewunz is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2018, 03:43 AM   #74
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 29,085
It's just part of the Republican strategy of restricting voters instead of winning votes.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2018, 04:13 AM   #75
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 17,922
Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
It is not really a Constitutional issue. It is at the Supreme Court because it is a question of whether a State is in compliance with Federal law. It is a matter of interpretation of the Federal law. The problem is that the law is very clearly. It will take more than a couple sentences to explain.

Thanks for the analysis.


Now I'm curious how it could get to a 5-4 split. Is the law that vague? it sounds straightforward enough for a Supreme Court justice to understand. I may have to actually read the opinions.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2018, 04:14 AM   #76
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 43,877
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Get a State ID card. My alien wife got one by showing her passport, marriage license and fiancee visa.

I have to admit I tend to forget how much harder it can be these days to register. I registered back in 1999; probably gotten harder since.
That just shows the system is working to disenfranchise the worthless as designed. This is a feature not a bug.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2018, 04:16 AM   #77
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 43,877
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I've seen an awful lot of laws, proposals, initiatives, to change the way people become eligible to vote in America, and the one, universal, thing that is true about all of them is that they are supported by whichever party would get a net gain in votes from it. Actually making it more likely for more citizens to vote is never the issue, nor is reducing the nearly non-existent problem of voting fraud. It's all about making it easier for our team to vote, and making it harder for the other team to vote.

I try to avoid thinking that way, and so I just try to do things that sound sensible to me. Register to vote while getting a driver's license? That sounds pretty darned sensible. Have to show ID? Sounds pretty darned sensible.
Yep non drivers shouldn't be allowed to vote. If you can't afford a car your opinion doesn't matter.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2018, 05:51 AM   #78
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 18,034
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Yep non drivers shouldn't be allowed to vote. If you can't afford a car your opinion doesn't matter.
That took care of NYC.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2018, 05:52 AM   #79
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 28,455
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
That took care of NYC.
Well, nobody in NYC should be allowed to vote anyway. But that's just me.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2018, 08:44 AM   #80
DevilsAdvocate
Illuminator
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,836
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Thanks for the analysis.


Now I'm curious how it could get to a 5-4 split. Is the law that vague? it sounds straightforward enough for a Supreme Court justice to understand. I may have to actually read the opinions.
It is not that the law is complicated; it is a matter of interpretation. The crux of the matter is: how a State can determine whether a voter may have moved? When can they kick off the steps in subsection (d)? Ohio argues that a person not voting for two years can be used as a indicator that a person may have moved.

Subsection (c) says the State "may" use Postal Service information. Not "may only" or even "shall". I think Congress used "may" intentionally so that a State could use other information to indicate that a person may have moved. An example in the majority opinion is a person who has turned in a driver's license.

The question then is whether a State can use non-voting as a means to determine that a person may have moved, or whether that is invalid because it relies solely on non-voting. The majority opinion is that it is allowed because the the person is not being removed "solely" for non-voting because they are sent the card.
__________________
Heaven forbid someone reads these words and claims to be adversely affected by them, thus ensuring a barrage of lawsuits filed under the guise of protecting the unknowing victims who were stupid enough to read this and believe it! - Kevin Trudeau
DevilsAdvocate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:01 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.