The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Ohio is allowed to purge eligible voters from the state’s registration records if they have not cast ballots in a while.

In a 5-4 ruling issued by Justice Samuel Alito, the high court ruled that Ohio’s law to trigger the removal of inactive voters from the state’s registry can be enforced.

State officials argued that the process used by Ohio for more than 20 years is constitutional and legal, and meant to ensure election security.

Civil liberties groups challenged the state’s program for removing thousands of people from voter rolls based on their failure to vote in recent elections, claiming it violated the National Voter Registration Act.


But Alito said that Ohio is complying with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. At least six other states have similar rules in place, and Monday's decision could lead others to adopt similar procedures.

“It is undisputed that Ohio does not remove a registrant on change-of-residence grounds unless the registrant is sent and fails to mail back a return card and then fails to vote for an additional four years,” Alito wrote in his opinion.

He concluded: "We have no authority to second-guess Congress or to decide whether Ohio’s Supplemental Process is the ideal method for keeping its voting rolls up to date. The only question before us is whether it violates federal law. It does not."

Under Ohio rules, registered voters who fail to vote in a two-year period are targeted for eventual removal from voter rolls, even if they haven’t moved and still remain eligible. The state says it removes names from registration only after local election boards send notices, and if there is no voting activity for the next four years.

The state first compares its voter rolls to the U.S. postal service list of people who have reported a change in address. Some residents, though, move without notifying the post office of a change in address.

Ohio has used voter inactivity to remove people from the registration since 1994.

Alito, in his opinion, clarified that states could not use the failure to vote as the sole reason for removal from the register. Officials would be required to show someone had changed their residence, was incarcerated or met other criteria.

Alito also cited statistics that 24 million voter registrations—about one in eight—are “either invalid or significantly inaccurate,” and that about 2.75 million people “are said to be registered to vote on more than one state.”

His opinion was supported by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.

The Trump administration backed the state.

But the four liberal justices dissented.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the ruling would hamper the right to vote in many parts of the country.

“Our democracy rests on the ability of all individuals, regardless of race, income, or status, to exercise their right to vote,” she said. “Communities that are disproportionately affected by unnecessarily harsh registration laws should not tolerate efforts to marginalize their influence in the political process, nor should allies who recognize blatant unfairness stand idly by.”

Sotomayor was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.

Partisan fights over ballot access are being fought across the country. Democrats have accused Republicans of trying to suppress votes from minorities and poorer people who tend to vote for Democrats. Republicans have argued that they are trying to promote ballot integrity and prevent voter fraud.

Link

quote:

But the four liberal justices dissented.

I always question why there has to be a divide when applying the law.
Ginsberg is the clearest example as she could care less about the law.
I realize one can make the point about the conservative judges too but seems to me the law is the law not what one interprets it to be.
{sigh}

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:

quote:

But the four liberal justices dissented.

I always question why there has to be a divide when applying the law.
Ginsberg is the clearest example as she could care less about the law.
I realize one can make the point about the conservative judges too but seems to me the law is the law not what one interprets it to be.
{sigh}

It is always necessary to interpret words, to apply the meaning of the terms which are rarely examples of epistemological exactitude, to various facts.

Even the so-called Ten Commandments have been the subject of some debate and controvesy over the precise meanings and limitations.

Ginsberg also seems to have a little bit of a history of hoping that her dissents of today are the majority opinions of tomorrow. Maybe she's right to hope. Between the "superstar" type media she's gotten over the past few years and the accession of President Trump, I'm sure every law school of any size has its own little club of devotees that read her dissents quite carefully and fully plan to re-raise the arguments in future cases.

Just die already

quote:

I always question why there has to be a divide when applying the law.

Because some people tend to view things the way they are (reality) while others tend to view things the way they feel they should be (fantasy).

How old is Ginsberg anyway? 160?

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
How old is Ginsberg anyway? 160?

She is 85, even older than Sen. Feinstein!

Only by 3 months.

Bitch needs to die PDQ and I hope her last thoughts are of the conservative white male who will take her place.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Just die already

You know, you have to stop repressing your thoughts. Let them out and you will feel better.
/wink

Maybe all these Liberal governed cities will remove the cemetery voters from the roles now. Just kidding we know that will never happen.

So, some justices said the dead have a right to vote??
That is just how screwed up they are, they need removed right frickin now.

Where I worked most of my life, we had a black woman who worked in Hourly personnel. The company was calling back people from years of layoff and hiring new people as well. This woman threw away all the recall slips and a lot of the applications of whites and stuffed applications from all her black friends in.
It cost me getting called back for 4 months and cost me a lot of seniority.

When the election came about when obama was running for his second term, I found out that she was appointed to the board of elections by the Democratic party in this county.
Since I knew the guy who was the head of the board, I informed him to be on the lookout for her to try to stuff the ballot boxes with dead peoples ballots. They laughed it off!

quote:

“Communities that are disproportionately affected by unnecessarily harsh registration laws should not tolerate efforts to marginalize their influence in the political process, nor should allies who recognize blatant unfairness stand idly by.”

I could agree with this statement, but that is clearly not the case. They think Ohio has unnecessarily harsh registration laws? I call BS.

I would have liked to see it go farther. Purge the rolls entirely. Everyone re-registers, proof of citizenship required.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquabird:
So, some justices said the dead have a right to vote??

It is very demeaning to call them "dead people."
They are disenfranchising "Unvivified-Americans"!

quote:

Originally posted by Crom:

quote:

Originally posted by Aquabird:
So, some justices said the dead have a right to vote??

It is very demeaning to call them "dead people."
They are disenfranchising "Unvivified-Americans"!

They are Legacy Americans.

quote:

Our democracy rests on the ability of all individuals, regardless of race, income, or status, to exercise their right to vote,” she said.

Point of order. Doesn't citizenship count?

quote:

Originally posted by 1967Goat:
They think Ohio has unnecessarily harsh registration laws? I call BS.

That's kind of their little trick. First they label whatever they don't like as "harsh", and then insist that you prove - to their satisfaction - that it is in fact harsh. If you don't, of course, that just proves that it was in fact harsh.

The problem with liberals is that they've had so much success over the years at making money and gaining power without having to work that they've actually become good at it to some degree.

As long as you are registered, you just walk into your poling place and show a photo I.D. and vote.

How harsh is that? It ought to be that way for every state.

Of course you can request an absentee ballot and vote anytime. They send it to your house free of charge.