The Supreme Court issued an opinion today that upheld the procedures that Ohio uses to remove a voter from the rolls after long term failure to vote. Under Ohio law, a voter who fails to vote for two years is sent a preaddressed, postage paid card which lets the voter in question confirm that he or she still lives at the address included in the voter registration. If the card is returned, the voter is maintained on the voter rolls. If the card is not returned and if the voter then fails to vote for the following four years, he or she is removed from the rolls. This procedure follows to the letter the rules set forth in federal statutes for removal of non-voting individuals from the voting rolls. It's surprising to me that the case even made it to the Supreme Court.
Those who sought to overturn the law claim that it is designed to suppress the votes of minorities, veterans, people with disabilities and women. I'm not kidding; that's actually what they argued to the Supreme Court. Of course, nothing indicates that those who fail to vote fall disproportionately into those categories. First, there are voters who die. They don't vote (or at least they are not supposed to be able to vote after death. Strangely, many do in places like Chicago.) Surely, removing those who pass away cannot prejudice the rights of minorities, women etc. Second, there are those who move to a new address. These people are supposed to reregister to vote at the new address. This has nothing to do with race, sex or status as a veteran, etc. The left still claims that the rules for removing non-voters suppress the votes of minorities, etc. Then there are those people who just don't vote after they register. These people get multiple opportunities to continue to vote in Ohio. They could return the postcard sent by the State. Or, they could vote once in six years. If they don't, the state can purge them from the rolls as mandated by federal law.
If you see someone arguing that today's decision is part of a voter suppression effort, remember, Ohio is following the requirements of the law passed by the Democrats in the Senate and then signed by president Obama in 2012. Maybe you can ask them if they think Obama was trying to suppress minority voting. Then watch their heads explode.
Those who sought to overturn the law claim that it is designed to suppress the votes of minorities, veterans, people with disabilities and women. I'm not kidding; that's actually what they argued to the Supreme Court. Of course, nothing indicates that those who fail to vote fall disproportionately into those categories. First, there are voters who die. They don't vote (or at least they are not supposed to be able to vote after death. Strangely, many do in places like Chicago.) Surely, removing those who pass away cannot prejudice the rights of minorities, women etc. Second, there are those who move to a new address. These people are supposed to reregister to vote at the new address. This has nothing to do with race, sex or status as a veteran, etc. The left still claims that the rules for removing non-voters suppress the votes of minorities, etc. Then there are those people who just don't vote after they register. These people get multiple opportunities to continue to vote in Ohio. They could return the postcard sent by the State. Or, they could vote once in six years. If they don't, the state can purge them from the rolls as mandated by federal law.
If you see someone arguing that today's decision is part of a voter suppression effort, remember, Ohio is following the requirements of the law passed by the Democrats in the Senate and then signed by president Obama in 2012. Maybe you can ask them if they think Obama was trying to suppress minority voting. Then watch their heads explode.
No comments:
Post a Comment