31 minutes ago, Foraker said:

 

By arguing that voting should require some affirmative actions on an individual's part to maintain the ability to vote, aren't you arguing that voting is not a RIGHT but a PRIVILEGE ?

We might disagree.

 

I do not understand why having nonvoters on the rolls is problematic for election integrity or how removing nonvoters makes voting/elections "flourish."  (Just as I do not understand how withdrawing the state from the interstate compact that checked for voters voting in multiple states improved election integrity.)

Just because something is a RIGHT, does not mean it is removed from any affirmative action by citizens. Having a gun (right to bear arms) is a right too but people are not entitled to free guns, they need to take the affirmative step of buying them. A right to trial by jury is a guaranteed right, but to exercise that right the indicted must make an affirmative request for a jury trial. There are always affirmative steps people must take to actually use those rights.

 

Also, let's examine that further. A RIGHT means that you are entitled to do it and it cannot be taken away. That does not mean that the right can be removed from all process and can be exercised however the individual desires. Go back to the right to bear arms. There are certain steps that those who choose to exercise such right must do in order to exercise their right. That does not remove the right, but it sets up a reasonable process in order to do so.

 

Let's also contrast the right to vote comparing the prohibition of felons vs voter record purging. Without getting into the merits of the felon example, the prohibition of felons bars them from the right to vote completely. There is no process that they can follow in order to exercise their right to vote. Purging voter records of inactive voters does nothing of this sort. Those voters who are purged still have the right to vote, they can easily exercise that right, the only difference is that they need to follow the established process in order to exercise their right. Your argument about getting rid of voter rolls is akin to taking away the right to vote is flawed. It is a process matter and it is about voters following the process to exercise their rights.

 

In order for such a program like voter record purging to survive a strict scrutiny interpretation by the SC, it would have to be shown to not be overly burdensome so as to not interfere with the person's right to vote and that the interest of the state in setting up the process to vote be the least restrictive means to achieve the state's best interest. A voter record purge would clearly pass that test since 1) it is in the state's vital interest to ensure that voter records are accurate and up to date. 2) Keeping accurate voter records is vital to a fair election and 3) the burden is not overly intrusive for a person who is mistakenly dropped from the registry to be able to re-register and vote.  

 

While I understand that this may seem to be a burden from the perspective of many progressives, I struggle to think that the minimal impact that such rules would have would be the hill that progressives would choose to die on. 

6 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Moving to another state does not take away voting rights. It just means you have to re-register where your domicile is. Would not you think that is a reasonable thing to do? 

There are many practicalities on why you need to re-register after moving.
1) you are still registered at your old precinct so they are expecting you to vote there. Certain issues that apply to that precinct do not apply to your new location

2) If you do not register at your new address and voted there, you could theoretically vote twice because they are still expecting you at your old location. 

3) some people live in multiple locations. College students could vote in a new state where their college is located if they register, some people have multiple homes and are snowbirds in Florida and return to Ohio. If you did not have to register and pick your location, these people could theoretically show up to any election depending on what town they are in and vote. Not really a good idea.

 

Explain to me how registering to vote is overly burdensome to people and that this basic step is something that disenfranchises voters who really want to be engaged but cant be engaged because of this overly burdensome registration process? Explain to me how the benefits of voter registration are outweighed by the overly burdensome process of having to register to vote and update that registration periodically when you move or go dormant?   Outside of crying that a voter purge of records of people who have not voted in over 6 election cycles is wrong, explain to me how disenfranchised they truly are when they can easily re-register in a 3 minute process, if they truly care enough. 

 

 

This is why I think voter registration should be federally maintained, so a change of state address plays no role in whether a person loses their rights, even temporarily. There should be no reason that a federal, constitutional right, is arbitrarily lost or gained at the state level. It makes no sense. We don't have to re-register to gain the right to free speech if we move to another state, so why this? Once a person is registered, it should be permanent outside of the reasons I previously gave. It doesn't matter if you think the process to reregister is easy or not- it's not for many people. They shouldn't even be put into that position in the first place, and it is arguably a form of disenfranchisement to make them. 

Edited September 29, 20231 yr by jonoh81

On 9/28/2023 at 8:50 AM, Brutus_buckeye said:

Sorry, I do not waste my time going through Stacey Abrams twitter thread from 5 years ago. 

Nor do I waste my time giving Kari Lake any time of day. 

One thing i can promise you, 5 years from now Kari Lake will still be on Twitter claiming she didn't lose, nor did Trump.   

20 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Your argument about getting rid of voter rolls is akin to taking away the right to vote is flawed. It is a process matter and it is about voters following the process to exercise their rights.

I didn't make that argument.  You're thinking of someone else.

 

20 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

In order for such a program like voter record purging to survive a strict scrutiny interpretation by the SC, it would have to be shown to not be overly burdensome so as to not interfere with the person's right to vote and that the interest of the state in setting up the process to vote be the least restrictive means to achieve the state's best interest. A voter record purge would clearly pass that test since 1) it is in the state's vital interest to ensure that voter records are accurate and up to date. 2) Keeping accurate voter records is vital to a fair election and 3) the burden is not overly intrusive for a person who is mistakenly dropped from the registry to be able to re-register and vote. 

 

Wouldn't the least restrictive means be to allow registration at the time and place where you vote, and wouldn't that make voter records most accurate and up to date?  Particularly in today's digital age, that would seem to feasible.

18 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

This is why I think voter registration should be federally maintained, so a change of state address plays no role in whether a person loses their rights, even temporarily. There should be no reason that a federal, constitutional right, is arbitrarily lost or gained at the state level. It makes no sense. We don't have to re-register to gain the right to free speech if we move to another state, so why this? Once a person is registered, it should be permanent outside of the reasons I previously gave. It doesn't matter if you think the process to reregister is easy or not- it's not for many people. They shouldn't even be put into that position in the first place, and it is arguably a form of disenfranchisement to make them. 

 

 

So should we chip everyone?  Like a dog or cat?

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Lazarus said:

 

 

So should we chip everyone?  Like a dog or cat?

 

 

 

 

 

What?? Why in the world would we need to chip anyone? You do realize that with modern computer technology, all the states could have easy access to a federal registration database, right? You wouldn't literally have to track the movements of citizens for them to be identified when they go to their voting precinct. 

21 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

This is why I think voter registration should be federally maintained, so a change of state address plays no role in whether a person loses their rights, even temporarily.

First, nobody loses the right to vote when they are not registered to vote. If they move to another state and have to re-register, they have not lost the right to vote, they still have that right. THey just need to follow the process to exercise the right however, that is not akin to losing the right to vote. I know it may be semantics to you, but the meaning is different. To clarify better, a convicted felon has lost their right to vote, a person who is not properly registered has not lost the right to vote, they just need to follow the process to qualify. There is a big difference and that matters.

 

21 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

There should be no reason that a federal, constitutional right, is arbitrarily lost or gained at the state level. It makes no sense.

Again, this is a misnomer. No rights are arbitrarily lost, but there is a process that needs to be followed. What you are arguing is that the process is overly burdensome and its sole point is to keep or deter people from voting. Given the case law on the subject, I think the vast majority of courts both liberal and conservative would disagree with your views on the subject.

 

Even practically, how do you conduct elections if you do not know where people live and have a valid address. Especially if you go down the lower economic latter, people move more. That is a reality. That does not make things unjust but it is a reality of the situation. Now, even federally, how do you conduct an election with a reasonable amount of integrity, as well as handle other logistical concerns and matters if you do not know where people live when they vote??? Think about it. How do you ensure that there are enough polling locations and that those are staffed adequately if you do not have districts with a certain amount of voters. Imagine if downtown Atlanta staffed to expect 50,000 voters in one of their precincts and out of the blue they get 200,000. Other precincts get 80% less than they expect because people can vote wherever they want. 

 

What about voting for president when someone who lives in Ohio decides to vote in Georgia because they feel the Georgia vote may count more in their mind. That skews the election and makes the vote less reliable. It also causes gamesmanship too (I know you are not a fan of the Electoral College, but as long as that is a system in place it also makes your idea not at all practical)

 

Take that down to state issues. Most elections combine federal, state and local matters on the same ballot. If you can vote wherever, how can you vote on local issues that effect your own local interests? how do you prevent others from voting on those issues who have no reason to vote for them? Sure you can have extra elections, but those are very inefficient, very expensive, and you will have less people taking part in those elections and it would be bad for democracy in general. 

There are many practical reasons why these ideas are just not at all practical.

 

22 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

Once a person is registered, it should be permanent outside of the reasons I previously gave. It doesn't matter if you think the process to reregister is easy or not- it's not for many people. They shouldn't even be put into that position in the first place, and it is arguably a form of disenfranchisement to make them. 

Given the movement of people, it is just not practical to make registration permanent. The burden to register to vote is also minimal. It is easier to register to vote than it is to get a license. It is easier to register to vote than it is to get a cell phone or start an electric bill. All of these are basic functions that people do in their daily lives so to argue otherwise is absurd.    Also, there is a basic level of civic engagement that must be used to exercise your basic rights. Registering is a very minimal step. Voting itself requires some modicum of effort. People do not show up at your house and mark your ballot for you, you have to do that yourself.

 

Lets understand that if voting is important to people, they can make it happen. It almost seems like that other people voting for your preferred candidate is more important to you than it may be to them, which is not how the constitution should work. 

4 hours ago, Foraker said:

Wouldn't the least restrictive means be to allow registration at the time and place where you vote, and wouldn't that make voter records most accurate and up to date?  Particularly in today's digital age, that would seem to feasible.

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.

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

First, nobody loses the right to vote when they are not registered to vote. If they move to another state and have to re-register, they have not lost the right to vote, they still have that right. THey just need to follow the process to exercise the right however, that is not akin to losing the right to vote. I know it may be semantics to you, but the meaning is different. To clarify better, a convicted felon has lost their right to vote, a person who is not properly registered has not lost the right to vote, they just need to follow the process to qualify. There is a big difference and that matters.

 

This is pure semantics. If you can't vote, you don't really have the right. This is like when Black people had things like poll taxes and other hardships imposed against them in the Reconstruction South. They still technically had the right on paper, but these things still caused massive, intentional disenfranchisement. I am of the mind that the voter purges are intended for the exact same result. The default should never be to make it harder to vote, especially when the justification for it- election fraud- largly only happens in the fevered imaginations of conservatives and not reality.

 

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Again, this is a misnomer. No rights are arbitrarily lost, but there is a process that needs to be followed. What you are arguing is that the process is overly burdensome and its sole point is to keep or deter people from voting. Given the case law on the subject, I think the vast majority of courts both liberal and conservative would disagree with your views on the subject.

 

It's absolutely arbitrary when it doesn't have to happen. Again, we're not talking about purges of people who have died or something, we're talking about registered voters who have been deemed to have not voted enough to maintain their registration. But there is no rational reason given as to why being inactive as a voter in a nation that has no obligatory voting should cause someone to lose their registration in the first place. It's intentionally creating hoops for people to exercise their right to vote based on completely arbitrary standards that serve no legitimate purpose. 

 

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Even practically, how do you conduct elections if you do not know where people live and have a valid address. Especially if you go down the lower economic latter, people move more. That is a reality. That does not make things unjust but it is a reality of the situation. Now, even federally, how do you conduct an election with a reasonable amount of integrity, as well as handle other logistical concerns and matters if you do not know where people live when they vote??? Think about it. How do you ensure that there are enough polling locations and that those are staffed adequately if you do not have districts with a certain amount of voters. Imagine if downtown Atlanta staffed to expect 50,000 voters in one of their precincts and out of the blue they get 200,000. Other precincts get 80% less than they expect because people can vote wherever they want. 

 

When people move to another state or address, they fill out change-of-address forms via the USPS to forward their new address to all relevant parties. You're telling me that we couldn't have a similar process for a federal voter registration system? In fact, the change-of-address form could include a forward to the federal registration system. This is not rocket science. 

Literally nothing would change via elections except that voter registration itself would not be maintained exclusively through the state, which would limit ridiculous voter purges of people who don't vote for the party currently in power there. The solution is pretty straightforward.

 

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

What about voting for president when someone who lives in Ohio decides to vote in Georgia because they feel the Georgia vote may count more in their mind. That skews the election and makes the vote less reliable. It also causes gamesmanship too (I know you are not a fan of the Electoral College, but as long as that is a system in place it also makes your idea not at all practical)

 

I really don't know why you're finding this so hard. If there was a federal registration, all the states would have access to that database, and every voter could still be verified with it in their respective and proper districts in the same way that voters are currently via individual state systems.  You still couldn't just "vote wherever". 

None of the rest of the reasons you're arguing make any sense in relation to what I'm talking about. 

 

Edited September 30, 20231 yr by jonoh81

Doesn't registration here require proof of address, eg. a utility bill, in addition to ID?

9 hours ago, urb-a-saurus said:

Doesn't registration here require proof of address, eg. a utility bill, in addition to ID?

 

11 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

What?? Why in the world would we need to chip anyone?

 

If you show up to vote without a driver's license or a piece of mail, you can't vote.  Because...who the hell are you?  

 

We are told by your ilk that this is too burdensome. 

 

Therefore, we must chip or tattoo or brand. 

 

 

 

 

22 hours ago, Lazarus said:

 

If you show up to vote without a driver's license or a piece of mail, you can't vote.  Because...who the hell are you?  

 

We are told by your ilk that this is too burdensome. 

 

Therefore, we must chip or tattoo or brand. 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave it to a conservative to completely miss the reasons people have objections, but use that lack of understanding of the problem to jump to a ridiculous extreme. 

On 9/30/2023 at 3:37 PM, Brutus_buckeye said:

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?

That's ridiculous.  If you show up to vote in Ohio with a Georgia driver's license you're out of luck.

On 10/1/2023 at 2:13 AM, Lazarus said:

 

 

On 9/30/2023 at 3:37 PM, Brutus_buckeye said:

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 someone is voting in state or municipal elections in Georgia, but validly registered in Ohio, why should Ohio care about what their legally registered voters do in other states?  And if that person is legally registered in Georgia (let's say Georgia says that anyone who owns property in the state has the right to vote), that person still has to meet the requirements to vote in Ohio in order to vote in Ohio. 

 

But when it comes to federal elections, no one wants votes to be counted for federal elections in multiple states.  If only the states run the elections, why couldn't someone be legally registered in multiple states (such as owning property in multiple states that permit voting for that reason)?  The federal government needs to set some standards for federal elections, and that should include a national ID.

 

I thought the RealID was just a set of guidelines for a more secure state ID.  How does RealID solve the problem?  Is it a national ID now?

Even without the federal government, a bunch of states were able to come together and create a compact whereby each state could check whether their voters were voting in other states.  But Ohio withdrew.  If we are really concerned about vote integrity, how does knowing less about whether our voters are registered elsewhere improve voting?

 

On 9/30/2023 at 3:37 PM, Brutus_buckeye said:

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.

And yet we already have instances every year of overwhelmed voting precincts, so the current system is not so efficient and is not preventing that problem.  If you could just go to another precinct to cast your ballot there would be ways to relieve that logistical bottleneck. 

On 9/30/2023 at 4:49 PM, jonoh81 said:

 

This is pure semantics. If you can't vote, you don't really have the right. This is like when Black people had things like poll taxes and other hardships imposed against them in the Reconstruction South. They still technically had the right on paper, but these things still caused massive, intentional disenfranchisement. I am of the mind that the voter purges are intended for the exact same result. The default should never be to make it harder to vote, especially when the justification for it- election fraud- largly only happens in the fevered imaginations of conservatives and not reality.

 

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. 

 

On 9/30/2023 at 4:49 PM, jonoh81 said:

But there is no rational reason given as to why being inactive as a voter in a nation that has no obligatory voting should cause someone to lose their registration in the first place. It's intentionally creating hoops for people to exercise their right to vote based on completely arbitrary standards that serve no legitimate purpose.

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. 

 

On 9/30/2023 at 4:49 PM, jonoh81 said:

When people move to another state or address, they fill out change-of-address forms via the USPS to forward their new address to all relevant parties. You're telling me that we couldn't have a similar process for a federal voter registration system? In fact, the change-of-address form could include a forward to the federal registration system. This is not rocket science. 

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. 

 

On 9/30/2023 at 4:49 PM, jonoh81 said:

 

I really don't know why you're finding this so hard. If there was a federal registration, all the states would have access to that database, and every voter could still be verified with it in their respective and proper districts in the same way that voters are currently via individual state systems.  You still couldn't just "vote wherever". 

None of the rest of the reasons you're arguing make any sense in relation to what I'm talking about

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. 

1 hour ago, Foraker said:

f someone is voting in state or municipal elections in Georgia, but validly registered in Ohio, why should Ohio care about what their legally registered voters do in other states?  And if that person is legally registered in Georgia (let's say Georgia says that anyone who owns property in the state has the right to vote), that person still has to meet the requirements to vote in Ohio in order to vote in Ohio. 

 

But when it comes to federal elections, no one wants votes to be counted for federal elections in multiple states.  If only the states run the elections, why couldn't someone be legally registered in multiple states (such as owning property in multiple states that permit voting for that reason)?  The federal government needs to set some standards for federal elections, and that should include a national ID.

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.

 

1 hour ago, Foraker said:

nd yet we already have instances every year of overwhelmed voting precincts, so the current system is not so efficient and is not preventing that problem.  If you could just go to another precinct to cast your ballot there would be ways to relieve that logistical bottleneck

And this would make it worse

Casual observation from my weekend car cruise out Lake Ave to Avon.   There are hundreds of Vote No on Issue 1 signs.   Haven't seen a single one for.   Clearly the GOP right wing propaganda machine has fired up after their resounding loss in August. 

8 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

Casual observation from my weekend car cruise out Lake Ave to Avon.   There are hundreds of Vote No on Issue 1 signs.   Haven't seen a single one for.   Clearly the GOP right wing propaganda machine has fired up after their resounding loss in August. 

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. 

Lol, the "no" signs I've seen say "protect parent rights."  Gotta love it.

25 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

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).

 

The large majority of energy behind 'Vote No' on 1 had to do with this coming vote. I don't think turnout will be low. Don't forget MJ is also on the ballot.

Edited October 2, 20231 yr by GISguy

2 minutes ago, GISguy said:

 

The large majority of energy behind 'Vote No' on 1 had to do with this coming vote. I don't think turnout will be low. Don't forget MJ is also on the ballot.

MJ?

19 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

MJ?

 

Lord...

 

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

Whoa...

 

On 9/30/2023 at 3:09 PM, urb-a-saurus said:

Doesn't registration here require proof of address, eg. a utility bill, in addition to ID?

 

Yes, and none of that would even have to change under a federal- and automatic- registration system. 

On 10/2/2023 at 7:46 AM, Cleburger said:

Casual observation from my weekend car cruise out Lake Ave to Avon.   There are hundreds of Vote No on Issue 1 signs.   Haven't seen a single one for.   Clearly the GOP right wing propaganda machine has fired up after their resounding loss in August. 

 

I said this elsewhere the other day, but if we go by polling, let's assume that 41% of Ohioans are against abortion rights. In a state with 11.7 million, you would still have huge numbers of no signs even if they were still going to lose by the same margins as they did in August. Yes voters, I imagine, are less likely to put up signs for a lot of reasons, not least of which that there are so many nuts on the pro-birth side. 

1 hour ago, jonoh81 said:

 

I said this elsewhere the other day, but if we go by polling, let's assume that 41% of Ohioans are against abortion rights. In a state with 11.7 million, you would still have huge numbers of no signs even if they were still going to lose by the same margins as they did in August. Yes voters, I imagine, are less likely to put up signs for a lot of reasons, not least of which that there are so many nuts on the pro-birth side. 

I would agree with you, but for the August election the reverse was true.  There were hundreds of signs against the right wing move to limit the people's ability to choose.  

2 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Yes, and none of that would even have to change under a federal- and automatic- registration system. 

 

 

In theory, a US citizen with absolutely no way to identify themselves (either a homeless individual or an off-the-grid hipster hermit) has the constitutional right to vote.  But in the real world, there is no practical way to allow this. 

 

Your ilk claim that following the various simple and easy methods to register to vote and to cast a vote are far to burdensome (despite it being easier than ever), yet the much greater hassle of spending the morning at the BMV to get a state-issued ID is hunky dory. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Voter_Registration_Act_of_1993

 

 

2 hours ago, Cleburger said:

I would agree with you, but for the August election the reverse was true.  There were hundreds of signs against the right wing move to limit the people's ability to choose.  

 

There's no reason to believe all those people went away, and polling has consistently supported that voters support abortion rights in the state. Furthermore, the marijuana initiative should work in favor of passage. 

12 hours ago, Lazarus said:

 

 

In theory, a US citizen with absolutely no way to identify themselves (either a homeless individual or an off-the-grid hipster hermit) has the constitutional right to vote.  But in the real world, there is no practical way to allow this. 

 

Your ilk claim that following the various simple and easy methods to register to vote and to cast a vote are far to burdensome (despite it being easier than ever), yet the much greater hassle of spending the morning at the BMV to get a state-issued ID is hunky dory. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Voter_Registration_Act_of_1993

 

 

 

This just shows your lack of imagination, then, because I can think of several ways that would allow a homeless person to vote. 

 

Why should people have to continuously register for a constitutional right? It should be one and done, and none of you have been able to logically explain why that shouldn't be the case. This "easier than ever!" right-wing propaganda that flies in the face of conservatives/Republicans intentionally trying to make it ever harder to vote doesn't work with people with reasoning skills above that of a 10-year-old. My "ilk" wants a democratic system that works for all and where voting rights are respected and upheld, something the Right is clearly increasingly hostile to. 

Edited October 4, 20231 yr by jonoh81

13 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

This just shows your lack of imagination, then, because I can think of several ways that would allow a homeless person to vote.

 

 

So you're cool with anyone without an ID voting?  You believe in UVOs (Unidentifiable Voting Objects)?  What if they just hopped off a freight train as it rumbled through Ohio?   What if they're a baby in Timbuktu?  Who's to say they're not actually 18 and an Ohioan? 

 

We have to register dogs, but not voters.  Got it. 

 

 

 

 

Maybe it could be a free for all like guns?   JJK

7 hours ago, Lazarus said:

 

 

So you're cool with anyone without an ID voting?  You believe in UVOs (Unidentifiable Voting Objects)?  What if they just hopped off a freight train as it rumbled through Ohio?   What if they're a baby in Timbuktu?  Who's to say they're not actually 18 and an Ohioan? 

 

We have to register dogs, but not voters.  Got it. 

 

 

 

 

 

LOL wut?

13 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Yes, and none of that would even have to change under a federal- and automatic- registration system. 

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.

10 hours ago, Lazarus said:

So you're cool with anyone without an ID voting?  You believe in UVOs (Unidentifiable Voting Objects)?  What if they just hopped off a freight train as it rumbled through Ohio?   What if they're a baby in Timbuktu?  Who's to say they're not actually 18 and an Ohioan? 

 

We have to register dogs, but not voters.  Got it. 

 

 

You're trying so hard to misrepresent my position and project your ridiculous fears onto me. Nowhere have I said that I'm against voters providing some kind of proof of residence or ID. What I meant there was that there are ways that we can get homeless people proper IDs in the unlikely scenario that they would actually vote. 

Your "what ifs" are nonsense. 

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

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.

 

Why would it take an amendment? It wouldn't change anyone's rights, it would just establish a registry of existing voters which could be built from state-level databases. And I would imagine that the main opposition would come from the very people gleefully purging voters- Republicans. Because ultimately, this isn't about protecting democracy for the Right, it's about making it harder for the people they don't like to participate in it. 

 

Or, you know, Republicans could just stop purging voters. But nah. 

 

 

2 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Why would it take an amendment? It wouldn't change anyone's rights, it would just establish a registry of existing voters which could be built from state-level databases. And I would imagine that the main opposition would come from the very people gleefully purging voters- Republicans. Because ultimately, this isn't about protecting democracy for the Right, it's about making it harder for the people they don't like to participate in it. 

 

Or, you know, Republicans could just stop purging voters. But nah. 

 

 

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.  

2 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Why would it take an amendment? It wouldn't change anyone's rights, it would just establish a registry of existing voters which could be built from state-level databases. And I would imagine that the main opposition would come from the very people gleefully purging voters- Republicans. Because ultimately, this isn't about protecting democracy for the Right, it's about making it harder for the people they don't like to participate in it. 

 

Or, you know, Republicans could just stop purging voters. But nah. 

 

 

 

Since I turned 18 I've lived in several different states and two Ohio counties other than the one I currently reside in.  No doubt I've been "purged" from the Missouri, Tennessee, and Massachusetts voter roles.  I'm a victim and so can you. 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

What I meant there was that there are ways that we can get homeless people proper IDs in the unlikely scenario that they would actually vote. 

 

 

 

We're back to chipping and cattle branding. 

 

 

 

 

26 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

 

 

We're back to chipping and cattle branding. 

 

 

 

 

Someone left their phone on during the emergency broadcast test.

3 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

. Nowhere have I said that I'm against voters providing some kind of proof of residence or ID. What I meant there was that there are ways that we can get homeless people proper IDs in the unlikely scenario that they would actually vote. 

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. 

Crap, I forgot to turn mine off.

 

I, for one, welcome our reptilian overlords

1 hour ago, Lazarus said:

 

Since I turned 18 I've lived in several different states and two Ohio counties other than the one I currently reside in.  No doubt I've been "purged" from the Missouri, Tennessee, and Massachusetts voter roles.  I'm a victim and so can you. 

 

 

 

 

I explicitly addressed the issue of what would happen if someone moved to a new state. A change-of-address form could function to update the voter's new residence within the national system. States could still technically remove voters who no longer live there, but the voter would not completely lose their voting registration because of that move in the meantime. You guys are really struggling with pretty basic concepts in this thread. I have to wonder if you are intentionally trying to make it far more complex than it is. 

2 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

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.  

 

I feel like I'm talking to walls here. A federally-maintained registration would not impact the ability of individual states to carry out elections. They would still control the local election process, but voters would not lose their registration because of an arbitrary period of not voting or because of a change of address to a new state. 

 

I'm not speaking in tongues here, right? Everyone else gets the general idea of what I'm saying?

10 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

I feel like I'm talking to walls here. A federally-maintained registration would not impact the ability of individual states to carry out elections. They would still control the local election process, but voters would not lose their registration because of an arbitrary period of not voting or because of a change of address to a new state. 

 

I'm not speaking in tongues here, right? Everyone else gets the general idea of what I'm saying?

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. 

6 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

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. 

 

Can you point to the specific part of the Constitution that would prevent a national registration that otherwise completely maintains the state's ability to run elections? 

 

Because things like this shouldn't be happening: https://www.vpm.org/news/2023-10-03/voter-removal-virginia-process-change-vsp-elect

Edited October 5, 20231 yr by jonoh81

8 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Can you point to the specific part of the Constitution that would prevent a national registration that otherwise completely maintains the state's ability to run elections? 

 

Because things like this shouldn't be happening: https://www.vpm.org/news/2023-10-03/voter-removal-virginia-process-change-vsp-elect

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. 

9 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

Because things like this shouldn't be happening: https://www.vpm.org/news/2023-10-03/voter-removal-virginia-process-change-vsp-elect

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."

8 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

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.

 

Great, but what does that have to do with what I'm talking about? States would still run the elections, just not control whether someone specifically can exercise the constitutional right. States don't grant the right and should have no say in whether voters maintain it. They can otherwise control the rest, but the fundamental right should not be controlled by partisan politics. It's not functionally a right if it can be arbitrarily taken away like that. 

 

8 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

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).

 

Isn't purging voters for political reasons essentially the exact same thing as poll taxes and literacy requirements? They're all abitrarily applied to stop or limit voting from certain demographics. Republican legislatures aren't purging a lot of their own voters, after all. I fail to see any distintion, which is also why I think a national registry could be implemented without any constitutional conflicts. 

 

8 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

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. 

 

And I've never suggested a federal takeover of elections. So I just don't know why you continue to use this argument. 

 

8 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

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.

 

It's not getting rid of residency requirements, though. You would still have to be a resident of the district you vote in to actually vote there. It's simply to prevent anyone from losing their voting registration between moves or when they don't vote "often enough". 

 

Edited October 5, 20231 yr by jonoh81

16 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

Great, but what does that have to do with what I'm talking about? States would still run the elections, just not control whether someone specifically can exercise the constitutional right. States don't grant the right and should have no say in whether voters maintain it. They can otherwise control the rest, but the fundamental right should not be controlled by partisan politics. It's not functionally a right if it can be arbitrarily taken away like that. 

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. 

16 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

Isn't purging voters for political reasons essentially the exact same thing as poll taxes and literacy requirements? They're all abitrarily applied to stop or limit voting from certain demographics. Republican legislatures aren't purging a lot of their own voters, after all. I fail to see any distintion, which is also why I think a national registry could be implemented without any constitutional conflicts. 

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. 

 

16 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

It's not getting rid of residency requirements, though. You would still have to be a resident of the district you vote in to actually vote there. It's simply to prevent anyone from losing their voting registration between moves or when they don't vote "often enough".

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.