Brutus_buckeye

Again, you do not seem to get it. having to re-register is not the same or even close to losing your right to vote. It is not close to the same equivalent. There are many important reasons why people will need to re-register to vote or change their registration as has been outlined to you above. You seem to want to ignore those reasons. You are welcome to this opinion, however, for someone who is not a legal scholar or on the court, your opinion really does not carry weight. The term "minimally burdensome" is what the courts will use to determine whether a conflict with a Constitutional Right should overrule a state administrative policy. In this particular case, you would likely not see a court find this to reach that threshold. Ha, hardly. I was merely explaining to you the rationale used when you want to look at why one thing would be constitutional while something else would not pass muster. I know you do not seem able to really interpret nuance very well. The fact you think this was a defense of poll taxes is comical though. Again, you are welcome to hold whatever uninformed opinion on the matter that you choose, but legally speaking you are wrong on this. I know you may not like it, and you do not agree with how the law may be applied in this case, but from a factual point on the matter, you are just flat out wrong. You are welcome to disagree with the way the law may be but to claim that a Constitutional right is being violated in this case is factually incorrect. Again, factually wrong on this one, but you are welcome to your uninformed opinion on the matter. However, if you want to know how things actually work in regards to voting rights, I suggest maybe you consult with a Con Law scholar to have them explain the nuances here.

I think you are trying to invent a problem that does not exist here. Reading between the lines, you can apply 2 issues of popular concern now to your points: 1) Voter Registration and 2) Voting by felons. Let's leave out the felon voting right now because that issue is separate from the registration matter. Right now, the Federal government DOES set the basic rules of elections that states have to follow. All national elections are the first Tuesday in November, all citizens have a right to vote in them (provided they meet specific eligibility requirements) and they cannot be discriminated against or no rules can be made to prevent them from voting. The States will control the rest of the details and the administrative requirements to administer the vote. (I think we are in agreement here). Now, where we begin to differ, I believe is on the States function as the administrator of elections when it comes to the burden placed on an individual when it comes to registration. It is your position that registration takes away the right to vote for an individual and it is my position that it is a minimal burden that the State will implement that is intended to encourage the administration of fair, safe and accurate elections and the purpose is not to take away the right to vote. While, to your point, voter registration, and the cleaning out of voter records that have not been used for a long time MAY act as a minor barrier to some people when it comes to exercising their right to vote, the burden does not rise high enough to override the State's interest in THIS PARTICULAR CASE. For the record, I think felon voting is a different calculus. I see purging of voting rolls as vastly different than a poll tax or literacy requirement. I also think that through the history, the Supreme Court would also agree with this assessment as would the majority of legal experts. 1) Purging has to be done per a set rules and guidelines by the state. I do not see how you can argue that Republican administrations are not purging their own voter rolls?? If you have a set system for purging, it does not matter who you are, what county you live in or who you vote for, you will be purged if you do not vote often enough. 2) The difference between registration and even having to re-register is different than literacy and poll taxes because the burden on the individual is greater. You could argue that a small poll tax is a minimal burden or even a literacy requirement is important because it ensures an educated electorate, but the Courts have decided that, even while minimally intrusive, they represent a burden on certain individuals who cannot meet this burden, The interest of the State in placing these burdens does not override the individual burden to the right to vote and, the State's interests could be satisfied in other ways that may be less intrusive. In other words, there are less intrusive ways to accomplish the interests of the State than a literacy requirement and poll tax (assuming that on the face, the poll tax and litarcy requirement was intended as a neutral exercise of an important State interest) 3) Purging registration roles does not rise to the same level of a poll tax. While there may be a few people who may be burdened by this and a few people who may find the process frustrating, the questions as to the purpose are satisfied by the fact that 1) While a burden may exist on some people, the 2) State's interest in ensuring fair elections (as well as the other citizens who need faith that elections are fair) is also important, and 3) the State's rules are minimally burdensome and there is no other way to protect the interest of the State that would be less invasive. Therefore, it has been accepted that this is a reasonable burden on elections. A national database would not change this, as people will still need to locally register with their officials when they move, etc. so people know where to vote, what ballot to get, and a lot of other adminstrative reasons you are not accounting for. Let's examine why people do not vote often enough. They tend to be lower income, and they will move around a lot. Voting is not as important to them because from a practical standpoint they are more worried about getting by and elections and voting are often not all that important to them. Many of them over the course of a decade have moved 3-4 times to different zip codes or even states. It is important that when they move they update their registration because there are a lot of important interests that the state has when they move to ensure that the elections are fair and with integrity. If you do not vote but have your registration active for 5-6 election cycles and your registration is sitting dormant in the voter rolls, do you think that there could be a potential security breach?? How many times do you hear about cyber breaches, especially with government databases?? This happens quite a bit. Do you think it could possibly happen where the voter record database gets hacked and that data can be duplicated and passed out to a slew of ineligible voters?? Or, for states that allow ballot harvesting, those voters suddenly start voting again (even though many of them may not even live in that area anymore)?? This risk is realistic, and therefore, it is of keen interest to both state officials but all citizens to have a voting database that is up to date and accurate. The burden of having your dormant record purged for lack of use does not outweigh the burden of the State to provide fair and accurate elections and as mentioned above most legal experts would agree with this. contrary to your statement that voter record purges take away people's right to vote. That is false. Whether you are registered or not, if you are of age, you have the right to vote. This is more than semantics but an important distinction. Nobody loses the right to vote, but they just need to register. It is free to do, there are many ways to do this, and it is very minimally intrusive.

Its certainly a grind there and many of those types of businesses are like that. If you know what you are walking into ahead of time and prepare yourself it wont be so bad but if you dont know what you are getting into it would certainly suck. Pretty much the business model is based on 80% of everyone who starts there failing. They know by the numbers that 20% will succeed and do well under those conditions and enjoy it and the rest will fail. They are just trying to find the ones who will most likely succeed. Places like Aerotek and staffing firms have the same model. Heck realtors use that model too, the only difference is that realtors are independent contractors so there is very little to no risk to the agency of keeping a non-producer on the roster.

I get that a mistake was made. Those happen from time to time, but there really was no harm done and no injury since the issue was discovered, it was acknowledged as a mistake, and actions have been taken to correct the mistake. "ELECT spokesperson Andrea Gaines said state election officials were working with Virginia State Police to identify the names of people whose registration was “canceled in error,” a process she said began Tuesday. In an email, Gaines wrote that ELECT would then pass along those names to local registrars to immediately reinstate the voters."

Well first of all you would probably start with the Elections Clause in the Constitution which specifically states that elections shall be run by the states. Now Congress has the right to pass certain regulations to make sure that any such state does not set up election procedures that would prevent the states from thwarting the individual voting rights (as you saw with the Federal government ruling that poll taxes and literacy requirements were illegal as well as making sure that within reason, the states set up local precincts that gave all citizens reasonable access to the ballot box). However, the general logistics and mechanics of the elections are to be controlled by the states as the Elections Clause specifically points out. This means that some states can allow vote by mail or early voting whereas other states do not have to choose to do so. It means some states can require a voter ID whereas others do not have to follow suit. Now the Federal Government certainly has a lot of power to force states to comply with certain election standards, they cannot actually take control of the elections themselves as specifically stated in the Constitution. That power is explicitly reserved to the states. Regarding a national voter registration database that allows people to cross state lines to vote in Federal elections. While some concepts of what you propose may be tenable (i.e. a national ID system that provides an ID for all voters like an SS number) getting rid of certain residency requirements for voting would likely be considered an overstep that would explicitly violate the election clause as an attempt to have the Federal Government nationalize elections. So point being, the Federal Government may be able to do a lot in regards to elections, they do not have the authority to take over and run a national election. that is a power guaranteed to the states.

I get the idea of what you are proposing. I am saying it is not Constitutional in the way you envision it. You are not speaking in tongues, it is just that what you think may be an easy thing to accomplish is not that easy. There would be Constitutional issues with the Federal Government keeping a national voter database. It just does not work like that. SO yes, I understand exactly what you are proposing, you do not seem to want to grasp that it involves passing an amendment to accomplish what you want.

How does getting homeless people an ID provide any less of a burden to voting than registration? Oftentimes you can register to vote at the time you get your ID, and voter registration often involves less hoops.

But besides the $25 million a year, what other tangible benefit does owning the railroad bring in? Selling it could bring in a tangible benefit of $55-$60 million a year. Comparing Apples to Apples I would rather have $60 million vs $25 million. Now, if you tell me that a re-negotiated RR lease would generate $100 million a year and we are leaving $40 million a year on the table, that is a different calculation. Also, if there was some other tangible benefit to the city to own the railroad for its residents, then that is a different calculation. However, we are not using the railroad for transporting passengers or other tangible transportation benefit to the city. It is just an investment vehicle at this time, so therefore, to me, holding the asset does not provide the best return on the city's money. Also, an asset such as this is more valuable in the private sector hands than it is to a municipal entity so Norfolk Southern can achieve other benefits from ownership that the city could never realize.

Because under the Federalist system of government that is set up, practically speaking, there is no such thing as a Federal election. All elections are handled by the states. Legally, they have to be. The Federal government was never granted the power to set up and run a Federal election. That is why from a practical standpoint, the state you reside in, is very important. Outside of the presidential election, and even then, with the Electoral College, it is a state election, all the federal elections are agents of the state where you reside. When we vote for Senate, it is not a "National Election" but it is an election that Ohioans use to choose which Ohio "resident" would be best to represent Ohio's interests in Washington. While 33 other states are also choosing Senators at the same time to go to Washington, it is still a State decision and state election. Presidential Elections are similar as each State elects "Electors" or each State effectively chooses whom they want to become president. The Electoral college serves as a weighted average giving states with larger population more say in the process. However, this is still a state election because under the Constitution, the states select the President. There is no national mechanism for holding a national election. Even though technology may allow this, to create one, you need to essentially have an amendment to take the power to conduct the election away from the states and establish a system to nationally elect representatives to Congress. Currently, while there are national interests that come into play in all elections (national and state and local) the national interests such as Due Process rights, voting rights, etc. are with the individual. These are guidelines that states and the Federal government must abide by in order to conduct elections and not violate a person's individual rights. While the Federal government has an interest in overseeing that this is done fairly to protect the individual against a bad state actor, this is not necessarily interfering with a state's ability to conduct its own elections. Even where the Federal Courts and government intervene in elections, it is more about the protection of individual rights than it is about usurping the power from the states (It may have a similar effect but the distinction is important) In order to have a federal election, the Feds would essentially be telling the states that they can no longer be involved in their affairs anymore and then taking over something that was not expressly granted to the Federal government and reserved to the states. This would create a direct constitutional conflict between the States and Federal government which is why it would almost certainly fail to pass Constitutional muster. Therefore, in order to do this, you need to pass an amendment essentially creating a National Federal Election to remove the rights from the states and grant authority to the Federal Government to conduct National Elections.

But you cannot get a National Registration process so this is a completely moot point you are making. It is really not a concept that is feasible without an amendment, so that is not a realistic plan.

I am not trying to justify things, just stating the facts.

The legislature can do what it wants so long as it does not interfere with the court's authority. The court does not have power to compel the legislature to act, so the court order is nothing more than an opinion that the legislature can take into consideration and agree or disagree with. It is up to the voters to then decide if the legislators should be held accountable and punished or rewarded for ignoring the court.

that is part of the problem with some of the citizen amendments that are passed. They do not carry an enforcement mechanism (now to some extent, they really can't because the branches are considered co-equal) and that creates the chaos. Now, the solution and enforcement mechanism is at the ballot box, but voters really are not paying attention to the details like this and the hyper partisan system just encourages politicos of all stripes to just ignore the courts because there are no repercussions at the ballot box or they are term limited and do not have any worries there either.

I was kidding. I have no idea what it will look like, but considering it is already an outdated facade from the late 80s I was just trying to think of design concepts that were popular in the 80s for the redesign.

Cutting through the hyperbole. Dewine is not defying the restraining order. He has already said he will not appoint anyone to the position. Remember the court, especially a low level magistrate in Columbus, really cannot compel the executive branch or legislative branch to take a specific action. They can simply enjoin certain actions. So the court has restrained the governor from taking action to appoint a new Ed Commission and board to be overseen by the governor, but the court has no power to preserve the current board of education and the governor can dissolve that without a replacement mechanism in place if he chooses. Hence the stalemate that will be likely worked out shortly and most likely in the governor's favor.

I heard when they design the new exterior they are going to use a lot of decorative glass block and neon accent lighting

^ @Dev I was merely referring to Flynn's point about how departments can manipulate the capital budget and how funds dedicated for road and infrastructure can "leak" out in other ways.

^ Hey, its Monday. Still coming down from the weekend. :) lol

i was referring to his point where there can be some games played with the capital budget. Pretty much what you are talking about, however, there can be ways to manipulate it to get items that should be in the operating budget off the books and into the capital budget. Essentially, that accounting gray area that is not really focused on. I do believe Flynn has merit on this argument but, it is something that would not resonate with the voters.

MJ?

So the area where I think Flynn's argument has merit is a very in the weeds argument about the difference between the capital budget and operating budget and how various operating items can quietly find their way into capital budget items and deplete the fund. There is certainly precedent for this to happen. However, it is an in the weeds argument and no matter how valid, would not play with voters. The argument about holding out for a better deal does not move me. This is a fixed asset and has a variable valuation. I have no doubt that there may be some money the city could be leaving on the table here. I also believe that the city could possibly hold out and get some "more" money, whatever that factor is. BUT, the question should be not, is the city getting the most possible in the sale of the asset, but rather is the valuation of the asset fair and reasonable for what it would be worth in the current environment. Is the price fair. Whether you could extract 2-3% more is not the reason to oppose the deal. It should be whether the price is a reasonable price for the asset in the current economic environment. I believe it is. There are certainly other reasons to oppose this but the price is not one of them. A 5% variance either way should not matter.

I was noticing the same thing. Do not think it is indicative but certainly was noticed. I think the vote will be much closer than the Constitutional Amendment was. The biggest thing is that voter turnout and enthusiasm will be much less for the casual voter (which i believe bodes better for the No on 1 crowd). This is an off year election, most city council and muni elections get low turnout unless there are very big fiscal issues on the ballot, and in general there are not this year. In August there was this one issue election (Issue 1) and all the national money went into Ohio for that issue. November has many other elections and national money is focused on many other things. Voters got engaged in August to vote on this one issue in August. They may have moved on from it come November. Cynically speaking, if Issue 1 fails, the biggest beneficiary of an issue 1 loss would be Sherrod Brown. he would have a tough re-election bid next year and if Issue 1 passes, it takes the abortion issue out of the race and therefore, those voters do not have a reason to necessarily support him (because the issue has already been codified in Ohio), whereas if Issue 1 goes down, Brown can use that in his re-election campaign.

There is certainly an argument, especially amongst the wealthy that have multiple homes that they should be able to vote in local elections for all areas where they own property. That really is a pretty privileged position and runs contrary to many of the principles of voting that exist. But that is a philosophical discussion for another time. Ohio would certainly care for many reasons what its voters may do in other states as well as Georgia, or Florida, etc. For example, how would you overcome such a scenario. There is an important election coming up in and I know that my vote will count more in Georgia than it does in Ohio. I decide to "Move" to Georgia for 1 month to register and vote in that election. I know I intend to return to Ohio after the election is decided but I want to take part. I move to Georgia and vote. Obviously Georgia does not love this because it over inflates the actual residents of Georgia. Ohio would also have a beef with this as well as federal funding depends on where people reside, and if all the voters reside in Georgia but live in Ohio, Georgia would receive more federal funds to Ohio's detriment. The voter would create tax issues for themselves but that is there own personal problem. Also, from a pure election integrity issue, it just represents an attempt to game the system of one person one vote and it explicitly rewards those who have financial means to make it happen to the detriment of the poor. So yes, OHio would care and as mentioned above, we do not have Federal Elections in our country. We have state elections where we elect representatives to represent ours and our states interest with the Federal government, but this is slightly different than an actual Federal Election. And this would make it worse

I know that you may not have an understanding of Constitutional Law principles in such a way that you continually do not understand the why behind certain procedures, but it is much more then semantics. Voter registration is not a poll tax - Far from it. A poll tax is illegal because it requires people to pay for something to exercise a constitutional right. Here is how the Court system would view things, so to educate you on what is semantics and what is actually substantive. When dealing with a Constitutional burden such as a poll tax, reading test or voter registration, the default is to rule against any intrusion by the state against a fundamental rights. Voting rights would fall under this threshold. So you have a default that says any restrictions on the right to vote would be problematic. So then, the Courts would look at the reasons behind such restrictions to determine if there is a true compelling government interest in such a rule, and if that compelling government interest could not be accomplished through less restrictive means. A poll tax, reading requirements, and voter registration could all be described as meeting the test of a governmental interest to varying degrees. However, the poll tax and literacy test failed the overly burdensome test, whereas voter registration does not fail that test. The reasons being are that, 1) the government has a keen interest to keep its voter roles accurate for election integrity, 2) voter registration serves that purpose, 3) It is a minimally intrusive requirement, 4) It does not overly burden the individual and allows them mulitple ways to register. It does not matter if you are a liberal judge or conservative judge, such a restriction like voter registration would be upheld in any such court. It is pointless on your end to argue the justification of it, as it is beyond settled law. Again you mix up losing your right to vote with having to register to vote. You do not lose your right to vote. These are 2 separate legal distinctions and they matter. Again, registration and re-registration have been held as a valid and important step in the voting process and there are many practical reasons for doing so. There are many legitimate reasons for voter registration and those reasons are not to create voter disenfranchisement. I have laid out many practical reasons for voter registration as well as purging of records. You just choose to ignore them because they do not support your argument or worldview. People can certainly fill out a change of address form but YES, you cannot do a change of address form and forward to a federal registration system to update your voting record. The reason being is that there IS NO SUCH THING AS A FEDERAL ELECTION. Elections are run and controlled by the states. Each state sets its rules for running the election. As long as the rules comport with the guaranteed rights in the Constitution, the Federal government has no ability to Constitutionally regulate elections. When you elect your Senators or Representative, they are representatives of the state where you live. Each state can determine what is in their best interest on how they choose to send their representatives to Washington. There is no Federal System. The Constitution did not provide for such a system and until there is an amendment to change that, what you propose is not realistic. It is not that it is a hard concept to understand, it is just that what you think is easy, is actually not tenable under the current system. You would need a Constitutional Amendment to do what you think needs to happen. Now, such an amendment is not nearly as impossible to pass as say an amendment repealing the electoral college, but any amendment is still an uphill battle. So end of the day, your idea is moot because without an amendment to federalize elections, your idea will not legally pass Constitutional muster.

That would be pretty impractical. If i show up to vote in downtown Atlanta with my Ohio Driver's license to register to vote in the Atlanta election, should i be given the vote? I may live in Ohio, should i get to vote in an Atlanta election? What about local Atlanta issues that I could care less about, should I get a vote on them? Computer verification of licenses is not practical because 1) not all states use Real ID to date, 2) it is ultimately up to the state to control the ID system and the Federal government does not have the power to compel the states to make the change 3) Not all the states make electronic verification easy. While we may vote for Federal officials, there is no such thing as a Federal election. It is administered by the states. The Federal government does not have this power. The flaw that many on the left have with their reasoning is that the United States has never been one country in the sense you think of when you think of a country like Canada. It is a group of 50 individual states who share a unified government under a Federalist umbrella. The Federal government does not have the power to regulate the States to accomplish the goals you may seek to achieve. If same day registration should be a thing, how do you prevent voting precincts from being overwhelmed with last minute voters who register at the last second and show up at a random precinct. Election volunteers are staffed according to the volume of each location. Knowing with reasonable certainty ahead of time how many people can and will show up to vote at a location helps make the process efficient, it avoids long lines, and it does not disenfranchise those who were responsible and took the basic and easy step to register with the local election board to vote. There are many practical and logistical reasons why the process exists. It is not to disenfranchise voters, it is actually meant to allow engagement with the most amount of voters possible.