On 10/6/2023 at 8:01 AM, Brutus_buckeye said:

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).

 

Which means there shouldn't be any conflict with a national registry. It does not affect a state's ability to conduct elections. Also, I haven't really talked about felons voting in this discussion outside of my original comment. 

 

On 10/6/2023 at 8:01 AM, Brutus_buckeye said:

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

 

No. My problem is not with registration. My problem is that people can lose their registration, and therefore their right to vote, for abritrary and partisan reasons. There shouldn't be a case where someone has to re-register to vote in the first place. If they are alive, US citizens and aren't convicted traitors, they should maintain the right to vote. Period.

 

On 10/6/2023 at 8:01 AM, Brutus_buckeye said:

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. 

 

A "minimal burden" is still a burden, and I disagree on that characterization. These voter purges almost always target specific demographics of voters. They are not done simply to "clean" the records. They happen because the party in power wants to disenfranchise voters who don't typically support them. None of the other reasoning given for them is believable. 

 

On 10/6/2023 at 8:01 AM, Brutus_buckeye said:

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. 

 

Yes, I have no doubt that members of the party typically doing the purges would vehemently disagree as to the negative characterization of the purges and their purpose. They also disagree that Trump incited an insurrection and tried to overthrow a democratic election, so I'm not so sure we should be taking their word for it. 

 

On 10/6/2023 at 8:01 AM, Brutus_buckeye said:

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. 

 

Why should we expect Republicans to follow guidelines when they don't even listen to their own constituents? An end to gerrymandering? No. Sensible gun laws? No. Abortion rights? Nah. Also, it's not like there haven't been studies done as to how purges are usually heavily partisan in nature. 

 

On 10/6/2023 at 8:01 AM, Brutus_buckeye said:

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)

 

Good lord, did you really just try to defend poll taxes and literacy requirements as minimal burdens? History very much tells us otherwise as to their negative effects on minority voting rights, so now you've really undermined your use of that term with voter purges. If blatantly racist policies were "minimally intrusive", I don't think we can trust you definitions or reasoning here. 

 

On 10/6/2023 at 8:01 AM, Brutus_buckeye said:

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. 

 

Yes, they absolutely do. You should really stop supporting anti-democratic tactics, because no matter how many words you use to describe it, no matter how many times you call it a minimal burden, it still flies directly in the face of a constitutional right and our democratic systems specifically for partisan benefit. 

 

On 10/6/2023 at 8:01 AM, Brutus_buckeye said:

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. 

 

No, they wouldn't because a national database would be accessible to all local precincts. 

 

On 10/6/2023 at 8:01 AM, Brutus_buckeye said:

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.

 

I don't think you can speak for any of these people or the reasoning why they don't arbitrarily vote enough. And in any case, their reasons don't matter. There is no compulsory voting in the United States, so voters don't have to provide any explanation or excuse for not voting, even for an extended period. State partisans should not get to decide whether someone's registration is valid over completely fabricated reasons. 

 

On 10/6/2023 at 8:01 AM, Brutus_buckeye said:

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. 

 

No, because voting security in the US is already some of the best in the world, and there is no voter fraud issue and never has been. The very few times it happens, it hasn't changed any results and it's often Republicans doing it, not the voters who aren't voting several elections. 

 

On 10/6/2023 at 8:01 AM, Brutus_buckeye said:

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. 

 

It's not false and it's not semantics, just as the voting restrictions of the Reconstruction South were. It's not functionally different.

On 10/7/2023 at 1:18 PM, jonoh81 said:

No. My problem is not with registration. My problem is that people can lose their registration, and therefore their right to vote, for abritrary and partisan reasons. There shouldn't be a case where someone has to re-register to vote in the first place. If they are alive

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. 

 

On 10/7/2023 at 1:18 PM, jonoh81 said:

A "minimal burden" is still a burden, and I disagree on that characterization.

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. 

 

On 10/7/2023 at 1:18 PM, jonoh81 said:

Good lord, did you really just try to defend poll taxes and literacy requirements as minimal burdens? History very much tells us otherwise as to their negative effects on minority voting rights, so now you've really undermined your use of that term with voter purges. If blatantly racist policies were "minimally intrusive", I don't think we can trust you definitions or reasoning here. 

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. 

 

On 10/7/2023 at 1:18 PM, jonoh81 said:

Yes, they absolutely do. You should really stop supporting anti-democratic tactics, because no matter how many words you use to describe it, no matter how many times you call it a minimal burden, it still flies directly in the face of a constitutional right and our democratic systems specifically for partisan benefit. 

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. 

 

On 10/7/2023 at 1:18 PM, jonoh81 said:

 

It's not false and it's not semantics, just as the voting restrictions of the Reconstruction South were. It's not functionally different.

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. 

Meanwhile, in The Bad Timeline aka Today...

 

Ohio GOP Wants to Keep Less Restrictive Vehicle Emission Standards

 

The Ohio House Transportation Committee advanced a measure last week asserting legislative control over clean air standards. The proposal preempts local governments and state agencies from adopting more restrictive vehicle emission standards.

 

Why?

 

Under the Clean Air Act, California can impose higher emission standards than the federal government. Currently, California demands at least 35% of new car sales be zero emission or hybrid beginning in 2026. By 2035 all passenger cars and trucks must be zero emission vehicles, with medium and heavy-duty vehicles switching over by 2045.

 

California is the only state in the country with a waiver to establish its own standards. However, other states may voluntarily adopt California’s requirements.

 

House Bill 201, sponsored by Reps. Brett Hudson Hillyer, R-Ulrichsville, and Steve Demetriou, R-Bainbridge Township, bars any local government or executive agency from taking that step on their own.

 

“The legislation that’s in front of today is just asserting the role of the legislature in setting that plan,” Committee chairman, Rep. Riordan McClain, R-Upper Sandusky, said. “This is saying that no government entity is going to unilaterally make this decision and make Ohio consumers meet whatever the dictate may be — whatever vehicle propulsion type it is.”

 

“It’s saying that they’re not going to sign Ohio up just to follow California’s lead,” he added.

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/ohio-gop-wants-to-keep-less-restrictive-vehicle-emission-standards-ocj1/

14 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

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. 

 

I get it just fine and you haven't explained why any of those reasons are necessary. Because ultimately, you cannot. 

 

14 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

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. 

 

And the makeup of the courts heavily determines how they define such terms. Also, AFAIK, you're also not a legal expert on the court. 

 

14 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

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. 

 

You're willing to throw your weight behind other disenfranchisement efforts, and are trying to create a distinction where one really doesn't exist. Poll taxes and education requirements also didn't technically remove the right to vote, just as having to re-register after being purged doesn't. But all of these actions were done with the specific intent of limiting the voting of demographics of people considered hostile to the party implementing them. You can claim that poll taxes and such were much more nefarious than purges, but the intent and outcome serve the same purpose in both cases. You are merely uncomfortable with the association. 

 

14 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

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. 

 

Yes, I will continue to disagree and argue against the infringement of voting rights, even those occasionally supported by conservative courts and anonymous internet posters. And I will be on the right side of history every time doing so. You are not. 

 

2 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

I get it just fine and you haven't explained why any of those reasons are necessary. Because ultimately, you cannot. 

I have, you just choose to ignore them. Whenever facts do not seem to meet your personal viewpoint, you are quick to discard them. 

 

2 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

And the makeup of the courts heavily determines how they define such terms. Also, AFAIK, you're also not a legal expert on the court. 

Your political viewpoint skews your analysis. You are quick to blame conservative courts for everything. That is not the case. There is a long history of case law in these areas and what constitutes an infringement of Constitutional Law vs what does not.  And yes, while I may not be as well versed in Constitutional Law to qualify as an "expert" from the perspective of the court. I do know a whole lot more on the subject than you happen too. At least as far as I know you never passed the bar exam or taken any graduate level classes in Con Law.

 

You need to understand that the decisions of the courts are not based on a few, as you like to claim "conservative" justices just making up their opinion as they go along and expecting people to follow it. It is based on a history of legal cases as well as statutes that have been created for the last 250 years. Judges in many cases are bound by opinions and decisions from the 1940s and 1960s (which were hardly be considered conservative courts). Furthermore, you often like to pop off on court decisions without actually understanding what is in them and just go to your reflexive response of "this illegal conservative court". If you actually examine many of the decisions oftentimes, you do not have all justices voting in a partisan block (actually the majority of time they are not lockstep with what you would expect). So again, it shows your lack of understanding on how the Court system actually works in this country and why you often get the results you do, but it is much easier to keep sticking to your uninformed and factually inaccurate opinions. 

 

2 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

You're willing to throw your weight behind other disenfranchisement efforts, and are trying to create a distinction where one really doesn't exist. Poll taxes and education requirements also didn't technically remove the right to vote, just as having to re-register after being purged doesn't. But all of these actions were done with the specific intent of limiting the voting of demographics of people considered hostile to the party implementing them. You can claim that poll taxes and such were much more nefarious than purges, but the intent and outcome serve the same purpose in both cases. You are merely uncomfortable with the association. 

Again, you misinterpret what I said there. I was not defending poll taxes as you seem to want to think. And yes, to your point Poll taxes do not remove the right to vote, but are still illegal. Same with literacy requirements. So as I have tried to explain to you, what analysis would a court use to determine these are illegal but having to re-register to vote be legal?? There is a big distinction that you want to ignore. The big difference jonboy is that while all 3 of these examples create some sort of burden to voting, the registration process is deemed to not be as burdensome as the other 2 AND the interest of the state in promoting a fair and equitable election cannot be accomplished through any other reasonable means. Poll taxes and literacy tests do not meet that standard which is why they have been held unConstitutional. You may not like the result, but it is perfectly rational result. Also, you seem to want to infer nefarious circumstances to voter roll purges when they can also be looked at as a benign way to get rid of outdated records. You should step away from your position and actually try and look at it through an objective lens and, while you may not necessarily agree with it, allow yourself to at least see the opposing viewpoint as something besides nefarious intent. 

 

2 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

Yes, I will continue to disagree and argue against the infringement of voting rights, even those occasionally supported by conservative courts and anonymous internet posters. And I will be on the right side of history every time doing so. You are not. 

Then i suggest you find a true infringement of voting rights where such an infringement exists. Maybe try and understand the law and the reasoning behind it instead of constantly just blaming your conservative boogeyman. 

 
 

 

7 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

I do know a whole lot more on the subject than you happen too.

 

The big difference jonboy is that while all 3 of these examples create some sort of burden to voting, the registration process is deemed to not be as burdensome as the other 2 AND the interest of the state in promoting a fair and equitable election cannot be accomplished through any other reasonable means.

 

I found these two sentences to be most enlightening. 

9 hours ago, Foraker said:

 

I found these two sentences to be most enlightening. 

The big question comes down to what is a minimal burden (registration is), but even a minimal burden of a basic right would not pass muster unless there is no other way for the state reasonably satisfy the interest they seek. Now, removing political bias out of the equation. THe state obviously has an interest to provide election integrity and to effectively manage their voting rolls. People of different political persuasions may argue that this is rife with politics and can be used to punish political enemies. However, a court (either liberal or conservative) will not look at it through that lens and only examine whether the goal stated by the state is reasonable.  

18 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

I have, you just choose to ignore them. Whenever facts do not seem to meet your personal viewpoint, you are quick to discard them. 

 

Your political viewpoint skews your analysis. You are quick to blame conservative courts for everything. That is not the case. There is a long history of case law in these areas and what constitutes an infringement of Constitutional Law vs what does not.  And yes, while I may not be as well versed in Constitutional Law to qualify as an "expert" from the perspective of the court. I do know a whole lot more on the subject than you happen too. At least as far as I know you never passed the bar exam or taken any graduate level classes in Con Law.

 

I don't really care how much or little experience or knowledge you have on past case law. Case law and legal precedence have been used to justify all sorts of terrible things in the past in the US, including limited or exclusionary constitutional rights, so your argument that purges are fine because case law says so holds no weight with me whatsoever. It does not matter. Your appeal to authority here is merely meant to shut down and avoid discussion on why purging voters are necessary for any living citizens. You couldn't defend these actions with believable reasoning, so you're resorting to a similar law argument to that which was also used to defend things like segregation, Native American genocide, no suffrage for women and minorities and no rights for LGBTQ, all of which had established case law at one time. So did Roe, for that matter, and we saw how little regard conservatives had for that one. I'm not rejecting case law because I am ignorant of it, I am rejecting it because it's a poor argument for undermining voting rights. 

 

18 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

You need to understand that the decisions of the courts are not based on a few, as you like to claim "conservative" justices just making up their opinion as they go along and expecting people to follow it. It is based on a history of legal cases as well as statutes that have been created for the last 250 years. Judges in many cases are bound by opinions and decisions from the 1940s and 1960s (which were hardly be considered conservative courts).

 

Ah yes, who could forget that progressive golden age of the 1940s.

 

18 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Furthermore, you often like to pop off on court decisions without actually understanding what is in them and just go to your reflexive response of "this illegal conservative court". If you actually examine many of the decisions oftentimes, you do not have all justices voting in a partisan block (actually the majority of time they are not lockstep with what you would expect). So again, it shows your lack of understanding on how the Court system actually works in this country and why you often get the results you do, but it is much easier to keep sticking to your uninformed and factually inaccurate opinions. 

 

lol, I've never once called a court "illegal", conservative or otherwise. Your love of making things up- with fake quotations no less- and throwing out dozens of condescending insults when the debate isn't going well for you doesn't change the problem you have here, which is that purgest are not defensible if you truly believe in a fair democratic system. 

 

18 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Again, you misinterpret what I said there. I was not defending poll taxes as you seem to want to think. And yes, to your point Poll taxes do not remove the right to vote, but are still illegal. Same with literacy requirements. So as I have tried to explain to you, what analysis would a court use to determine these are illegal but having to re-register to vote be legal?? There is a big distinction that you want to ignore. The big difference jonboy is that while all 3 of these examples create some sort of burden to voting, the registration process is deemed to not be as burdensome as the other 2 AND the interest of the state in promoting a fair and equitable election cannot be accomplished through any other reasonable means.

 

So legal semantics, essentially. It's okay to disenfranchise in some cases, but not all so long as we apply arbitrary definitions of "burdensome". 

Your position is that states can't effectively run a fair and equitable election without purges, is that it? I just don't follow that logic whatsoever. Again, I have no problem with removing people who have died, are no longer citizens, etc. but we should be doing everything possible to remove *any* unnecessary burdens from voting, and leaving this up to the state alone- which can and has occasionally abused the process for partisan gain- is a problem regardless of any case law. 

 

18 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Poll taxes and literacy tests do not meet that standard which is why they have been held unConstitutional. You may not like the result, but it is perfectly rational result. Also, you seem to want to infer nefarious circumstances to voter roll purges when they can also be looked at as a benign way to get rid of outdated records. You should step away from your position and actually try and look at it through an objective lens and, while you may not necessarily agree with it, allow yourself to at least see the opposing viewpoint as something besides nefarious intent. 

 

Because tens of thousands of legitimate voters are mistakenly removed from the rolls every time these happen. Even if we are to believe that purges are simply getting "rid of outdated records" because states are adhering to the 1993 act, they are prone to mistakes and removing voters that should in no way be removed. Beyond that, though, I still completely reject the idea that anyone should lose their registration from a lack of voting "enough". People should be able to register once and stay registered until they die or the other disqualification standards are met. It makes no logical sense- again, regardless of the laws in support- that American citizens should lose their registration for something as simple as moving or not liking the candidates enough to vote for a few cycles. You can defend it if you want, but I don't think your motivations for doing so have anything to do with election integrity or laws.

 

Edited October 10, 20231 yr by jonoh81

3 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

I don't really care how much or little experience or knowledge you have on past case law. Case law and legal precedence have been used to justify all sorts of terrible things in the past in the US, including limited or exclusionary constitutional rights, so your argument that purges are fine because case law says so holds no weight with me whatsoever. It does not matter. Your appeal to authority here is merely meant to shut down and avoid discussion on why purging voters are necessary for any living citizens. You couldn't defend these actions with believable reasoning, so you're resorting to a similar law argument to that which was also used to defend things like segregation, Native American genocide, no suffrage for women and minorities and no rights for LGBTQ, all of which had established case law at one time. So did Roe, for that matter, and we saw how little regard conservatives had for that one. I'm not rejecting case law because I am ignorant of it, I am rejecting it because it's a poor argument for undermining voting rights. 

Translation - Facts do not matter to you if they are in conflict with your feelings.  

Good, at least you are honest about it. 

I am sorry if educating you on the process was irrelevant. The appeal to authority was to provide you with background as to why things are how they are. Rules can be changed but they must follow a process and the way you often want to go about changing things does not often follow the process and procedures to change those rules because it seems inconvenient to you. IF you understand and can work within the process you can actually create change, otherwise you just complain and pout about how unjust things are and spout meaningless platitudes on "being on the right side of history" and other meaningless BS.

At the end of the day, You know what you know and I just end up confusing you with the facts.

 

8 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

So legal semantics, essentially. It's okay to disenfranchise in some cases, but not all so long as we apply arbitrary definitions of "burdensome". 

Your position is that states can't effectively run a fair and equitable election without purges, is that it? I just don't follow that logic whatsoever. Again, I have no problem with removing people who have died, are no longer citizens, etc. but we should be doing everything possible to remove *any* unnecessary burdens from voting, and leaving this up to the state alone- which can and has occasionally abused the process for partisan gain- is a problem regardless of any case law. 

Not legal semantics. certain words in a legal context have a different meaning than they do in social context. We can argue that the term "undue burden" may mean different things when you talk about it in public or on this forum, but in a legal context it has a very specific meaning. It is much more than just semantics. 

 

And for what it is worth. My position, which is the essential accepted position of the majority of jurists in the country, is that 1) The state has an interest to conduct a fair and impartial election and to ensure election integrity, 2) keeping track of election rolls is an important task that the state undertakes to ensure a fair process. 3) Election rolls are important because it makes sure that people are voting where they live and on issues that pertain to them as a local resident of an area, 4) Accurate Election rolls also ensure that the state officials can provide an adequate number of voting precincts and properly staff these precincts to avoid long voting lines and make sure that people who are properly registered are not disenfranchised in the process. 5) While voter registration and re-registration after you move or even begin voting again after a long gap, may create a very minimal burden on the person's ability to vote, it does not actually prevent a person who is engaged in an election from voting if they take a very minimal step to do so, and that even though this presents a very small burden on an individual, the is really no effective way to protect the interests of other voters who may be disenfranchised by people voting without proper registration. 

 

In other words, it is selfish for individuals to cry that having to follow any semblance of a process to vote is disenfranchisement. 

 

Now, I also think that voting roll purges can be illegal in some cases and perfectly acceptable in others. 1) If a plan to purge voting records is carried out in an arbitrary manner such that its target is to specifically harm one group over another, then it would be illegal. 2) If it is done in a non-arbitrary manner and certain criteria apply to anyone who has their records deleted, it is reasonable. For example, if you put a voter purge method into place that anyone who skips an election would be purged, that would likely be illegal. Too many people skip elections, and it would likely place an undue burden on younger and poorer people who move frequently to update their voting records and maintain an active voting record. However, if you extend that timeline out to say 12-16 years, the calculus changes significantly and the burden should be on the individual at that point to show that they want to engage with the democratic process again if they are around. The longer a voting record is dormant, the less likely the person will re-engage and the more susceptible to fraud it becomes. 

 

24 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

Because tens of thousands of legitimate voters are mistakenly removed from the rolls every time these happen. Even if we are to believe that purges are simply getting "rid of outdated records" because states are adhering to the 1993 act, they are prone to mistakes and removing voters that should in no way be removed. Beyond that, though, I still completely reject the idea that anyone should lose their registration from a lack of voting "enough". People should be able to register once and stay registered until they die or the other disqualification standards are met. It makes no logical sense- again, regardless of the laws in support- that American citizens should lose their registration for something as simple as moving or not liking the candidates enough to vote for a few cycles. You can defend it if you want, but I don't think your motivations for doing so have anything to do with election integrity.

Mistakes will happen. That is not the standard. The standard is how hard is it to cure the mistake when that happens. IN the case of voting registration it is less than a 5 minute process. 

Let's be real, anytime you have an electronic record, it is susceptible to hacking or being deleted, etc. Government databases are hacked all the time. People's SSN's are compromised, their personal data gets hacked and it is a nightmare to remedy. In many cases it takes months or longer for people to fix such data breaches if their identity is stolen or deleted. 

When it comes to voting rights, and a mistaken record that is deleted, this is a much easier remedy and can be done much quicker. 

I strongly disagree with your assertion, and as pointed out above, the facts certainly disagree with your opinion too, but you are still welcome to your opinion, no matter how uniformed. 

 

 

8 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Translation - Facts do not matter to you if they are in conflict with your feelings.  

Good, at least you are honest about it. 

I am sorry if educating you on the process was irrelevant. The appeal to authority was to provide you with background as to why things are how they are. Rules can be changed but they must follow a process and the way you often want to go about changing things does not often follow the process and procedures to change those rules because it seems inconvenient to you. IF you understand and can work within the process you can actually create change, otherwise you just complain and pout about how unjust things are and spout meaningless platitudes on "being on the right side of history" and other meaningless BS.

At the end of the day, You know what you know and I just end up confusing you with the facts.

 

Not legal semantics. certain words in a legal context have a different meaning than they do in social context. We can argue that the term "undue burden" may mean different things when you talk about it in public or on this forum, but in a legal context it has a very specific meaning. It is much more than just semantics. 

 

And for what it is worth. My position, which is the essential accepted position of the majority of jurists in the country, is that 1) The state has an interest to conduct a fair and impartial election and to ensure election integrity, 2) keeping track of election rolls is an important task that the state undertakes to ensure a fair process. 3) Election rolls are important because it makes sure that people are voting where they live and on issues that pertain to them as a local resident of an area, 4) Accurate Election rolls also ensure that the state officials can provide an adequate number of voting precincts and properly staff these precincts to avoid long voting lines and make sure that people who are properly registered are not disenfranchised in the process. 5) While voter registration and re-registration after you move or even begin voting again after a long gap, may create a very minimal burden on the person's ability to vote, it does not actually prevent a person who is engaged in an election from voting if they take a very minimal step to do so, and that even though this presents a very small burden on an individual, the is really no effective way to protect the interests of other voters who may be disenfranchised by people voting without proper registration. 

 

In other words, it is selfish for individuals to cry that having to follow any semblance of a process to vote is disenfranchisement. 

 

Now, I also think that voting roll purges can be illegal in some cases and perfectly acceptable in others. 1) If a plan to purge voting records is carried out in an arbitrary manner such that its target is to specifically harm one group over another, then it would be illegal. 2) If it is done in a non-arbitrary manner and certain criteria apply to anyone who has their records deleted, it is reasonable. For example, if you put a voter purge method into place that anyone who skips an election would be purged, that would likely be illegal. Too many people skip elections, and it would likely place an undue burden on younger and poorer people who move frequently to update their voting records and maintain an active voting record. However, if you extend that timeline out to say 12-16 years, the calculus changes significantly and the burden should be on the individual at that point to show that they want to engage with the democratic process again if they are around. The longer a voting record is dormant, the less likely the person will re-engage and the more susceptible to fraud it becomes. 

 

Mistakes will happen. That is not the standard. The standard is how hard is it to cure the mistake when that happens. IN the case of voting registration it is less than a 5 minute process. 

Let's be real, anytime you have an electronic record, it is susceptible to hacking or being deleted, etc. Government databases are hacked all the time. People's SSN's are compromised, their personal data gets hacked and it is a nightmare to remedy. In many cases it takes months or longer for people to fix such data breaches if their identity is stolen or deleted. 

When it comes to voting rights, and a mistaken record that is deleted, this is a much easier remedy and can be done much quicker. 

I strongly disagree with your assertion, and as pointed out above, the facts certainly disagree with your opinion too, but you are still welcome to your opinion, no matter how uniformed. 

 

 

 

I think I get the source of our disagreement. You seem to believe that something being legal or agreed with legally makes it correct or justifiable, whereas my positions are in no way dependent on the current law agreeing or disagreeing with me. Lots of things that legally occur or that have legally occurred could very much be described as morally wrong or anti-democratic in nature, as in this case. You attempt to skirt around talking about whether the action is truly supportive of voting rights by referring to it as being acceptable under the law. I just don't buy into that position because I understand- even in my apparent massive levels of stupidity and ignorance- that history is full of horrors that were, at the time, perfectly legal and acceptable. I also just consider it a contradiction and completely inconsistent to on one hand claim to support democratic rights while on the other supporting throwing up burdens to those rights, even if they are legally supported in the current era. I make no distinction as to the level of burden because that doesn't really change my position or disdain for those burdens. I'll let the resident legal geniuses such as yourself haggle over the minor definitions of words to defend what objectively, temporarily or permanently and not just in mere feeling, harms a right. You do you, though.

27 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

I think I get the source of our disagreement. You seem to believe that something being legal or agreed with legally makes it correct or justifiable, whereas my positions are in no way dependent on the current law agreeing or disagreeing with me. Lots of things that legally occur or that have legally occurred could very much be described as morally wrong or anti-democratic in nature, as in this case. You attempt to skirt around talking about whether the action is truly supportive of voting rights by referring to it as being acceptable under the law. I just don't buy into that position because I understand- even in my apparent massive levels of stupidity and ignorance- that history is full of horrors that were, at the time, perfectly legal and acceptable. I also just consider it a contradiction and completely inconsistent to on one hand claim to support democratic rights while on the other supporting throwing up burdens to those rights, even if they are legally supported in the current era. I make no distinction as to the level of burden because that doesn't really change my position or disdain for those burdens. I'll let the resident legal geniuses such as yourself haggle over the minor definitions of words to defend what objectively, temporarily or permanently and not just in mere feeling, harms a right. You do you, though.

Or you refuse to even acknowledge how there is a valid argument and concern on the other side. You see only what could be considered a minor burden as disenfranchisement of voters for gasp, making them re-register because they have not voted in a generation whereas you do not want to acknowledge that by not having a good registration process, it risks disenfranchisement of the majority of voters who follow the rules. 

Live look at Brutus’ basement:

13 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

You see only what could be considered a minor burden as disenfranchisement of voters for gasp, making them re-register because they have not voted in a generation

 

4 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Live look at Brutus’ basement:

Writing whole novels just to say the quiet part out loud. Conservative policies aren’t popular so gotta do whatever you can to keep people from voting. 

I will say that the most recent time we got lapsed or even first-time voters out to vote on a large scale it was the previously-apathetic Harley Guys coming out for Trump. So Rs should want as many people voting since sometimes it makes them win. But they are so scared of the Black and youth votes since they're scared of anybody that's different from them.

Edited October 11, 20231 yr by GCrites

10 minutes ago, GCrites said:

I will say that the most recent time we got lapsed or even first-time voters out to vote on a large scale it was the previously-apathetic Harley Guys coming out for Trump. So Rs should want as many people voting since sometimes it makes them win. But they are so scared of the Black and youth votes since they're scared of anybody that's different from them.

 

A number of political scientists are coming around to this view.  The best metric of it over the next decade will be whether Democrats flip the script on what had been a long period of Republican overperformance in off-year elections (historically lower-engagement) and state-level elections (ditto).  It already seems to have begun in 2022, but obviously one data point can't make a trendline.  If we count 2018, though, maybe it does.

4 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

A number of political scientists are coming around to this view.  The best metric of it over the next decade will be whether Democrats flip the script on what had been a long period of Republican overperformance in off-year elections (historically lower-engagement) and state-level elections (ditto).  It already seems to have begun in 2022, but obviously one data point can't make a trendline.  If we count 2018, though, maybe it does.

I think it is much more of a Trump effect (or Trump revulsion) than anything. Even though Trump was not on the ballot, he still sought the spotlight during the 18 and 22 elections (  Trump even was fundraising off them for his own gain) and a lot of the politicians who lost were openly seeking his endorsements and mimicking his language.  The moderate suburban voter, especially the female suburban voter has been repulsed by Trump for a long time now. Until the Republicans can figure out a way to sideline him, he is going to push the group of voters who are reliable voters toward the Democrats in all elections.

26 minutes ago, GCrites said:

I will say that the most recent time we got lapsed or even first-time voters out to vote on a large scale it was the previously-apathetic Harley Guys coming out for Trump. So Rs should want as many people voting since sometimes it makes them win. But they are so scared of the Black and youth votes since they're scared of anybody that's different from them.

 

Brutus may be under the impression that I only care about this because I don't want Democratic voters purged, but I am consistent in that even though I largely despise the modern day conservative movement, I think everyone should still have a voice and a vote. 

Edited October 11, 20231 yr by jonoh81

39 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

I think everyone should still have a voice and a vote. 

Me too. WE are in agreement on that. But citizenry comes with some basic responsibilities. You have to do your part too. 

6 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Me too. WE are in agreement on that. But citizenry comes with some basic responsibilities. You have to do your part too. 

 

If you voted in 2016 for Donald Trump, skipped 2020 because you didn't feel particularly drawn by either candidate, but want to vote in 2024, should you have to register again to vote?

3 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

 

If you voted in 2016 for Donald Trump, skipped 2020 because you didn't feel particularly drawn by either candidate, but want to vote in 2024, should you have to register again to vote?

That depends. Did you move? If so, then yes, you need to update your registration. 
Will the state purge your records if you did not vote in 2 election cycles? I do not know a state that will do so. If you do not vote over the course of say 12-15 years, then I can see that happening. However, that being said, of the people who have not voted over the last 12-15 years, what % of them actually have the same mailing address that they originally registered under?? My guess is very few. Which means that they would have to update their registration because they are in a new district anyway. 

2 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

That depends. Did you move? If so, then yes, you need to update your registration. 
Will the state purge your records if you did not vote in 2 election cycles? I do not know a state that will do so. If you do not vote over the course of say 12-15 years, then I can see that happening. However, that being said, of the people who have not voted over the last 12-15 years, what % of them actually have the same mailing address that they originally registered under?? My guess is very few. Which means that they would have to update their registration because they are in a new district anyway. 

 

The state of Ohio will purge you if you don't vote in a 6 year span. So they can purge a presidential election voter for missing one election.

 

I know there are midterms and local elections. But they can and do purge the rolls for people who skipped a presidential election

Conservates are like... 

"I want everyone to vote, but only if you vote on election day because absentee and mail-in ballots are deep state communism."

"I want everyone to vote, but we really should add more arbitrary hoops for people to jump through based on endless election fraud gaslighting." 

"I want everyone to vote, but we should definitely reduce the number of days and hours people can do so. And let's reduce those days and hours the most for people who vote for the dirty libs."

"I want everyone to vote, but some votes should count more than others- and I really should be able to pick my voters via extreme gerrymandering and then completely ignore the majority when they seek to end the practice. Also, if you disagree with these tactics as a politician, we'll attempt to throw you out of office." 

"I want everyone to vote, but 18-24-year-olds aren't mature enough to make this decision even as 70 million supposedly mature adults voted for an admitted sexual assaulter and racist."

"I want everyone to vote, but if I don't like who they vote for, I will foment an insurrection and commit widespread fraud across multiple states to undermine the entire democratic system to get what I want." 

"I want everyone to vote, but I will attempt to pass legislation to take away their citizen-initiated amendment process because the people support issues I don't like." 

 

And on and on.

 

 

 

 

 

19 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

 

The state of Ohio will purge you if you don't vote in a 6 year span. So they can purge a presidential election voter for missing one election.

 

I know there are midterms and local elections. But they can and do purge the rolls for people who skipped a presidential election

Lets break this down since people are really miscontruing this and practically speaking, it does not infringe on someone's right to vote.

 

codes.ohio.gov/orc/3503.21(opens in a new window)
(A) The registration of a registered elector shall be canceled upon the occurrence of any of the following:
(7) The failure of the registered elector, after having been mailed a confirmation notice, to do either of the following:
(a) Respond to such a notice and vote at least once during a period of four consecutive years, which period shall include two general federal elections;
(b) Update the elector's registration and vote at least once during a period of four consecutive years, which period shall include two general federal elections

 

So, if you skip 2 elections your registration is not cancelled. If you skip 12 elections, you will not have your voting rights cancelled. You must also fail to mail in the notification card that was mailed to you to confirm you are still at the address you are registered under.

 

This means that the vast majority of voters who have their registration canceled are due to the fact that they no longer reside at that residence. This is good to know and good for the voter to be aware of too because oftentimes they may have moved and forgot to update their address, which at election time, if they wanted to vote, they would not be eligible anyway because they no longer live in that district. If anything, it prevents disenfrancisement instead of promoting it.

 

Now, certainly, errors will happen. Fortunately, this can be easily remedied by anyone looking to vote if they are engaged in the process. It would affect a very minimal amount of people and the effort to cure is nominal. This would clearly not be seen as an undue burden and if anything, it prevents disenfranchisement of the majority of voters who want to actively participate in the process.

23 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

Conservates are like... 

"I want everyone to vote, but only if you vote on election day because absentee and mail-in ballots are deep state communism."

"I want everyone to vote, but we really should add more arbitrary hoops for people to jump through based on endless election fraud gaslighting." 

"I want everyone to vote, but we should definitely reduce the number of days and hours people can do so. And let's reduce those days and hours the most for people who vote for the dirty libs."

"I want everyone to vote, but some votes should count more than others- and I really should be able to pick my voters via extreme gerrymandering and then completely ignore the majority when they seek to end the practice. Also, if you disagree with these tactics as a politician, we'll attempt to throw you out of office." 

"I want everyone to vote, but 18-24-year-olds aren't mature enough to make this decision even as 70 million supposedly mature adults voted for an admitted sexual assaulter and racist."

"I want everyone to vote, but if I don't like who they vote for, I will foment an insurrection and commit widespread fraud across multiple states to undermine the entire democratic system to get what I want." 

"I want everyone to vote, but I will attempt to pass legislation to take away their citizen-initiated amendment process because the people support issues I don't like." 

 

And on and on.

 

 

 

 

 

When you look at things through such a jaded lens, it is no wonder why you get confused by the facts.

19 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

So, if you skip 2 elections your registration is not cancelled. If you skip 12 elections, you will not have your voting rights cancelled. You must also fail to mail in the notification card that was mailed to you to confirm you are still at the address you are registered under.

 

The vast majority of people don't vote in primaries. They should, because it's more important than the general in most legislative districts in Ohio, but they don't. 

 

53 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Will the state purge your records if you did not vote in 2 election cycles? I do not know a state that will do so. If you do not vote over the course of say 12-15 years, then I can see that happening.

 

You literally said you couldn't think of a single state that would purge voters before 12 years. I pointed out Ohio does it in 6 years, and you immediately defend that position.

 

19 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

If anything, it prevents disenfrancisement instead of promoting it.

 

This would clearly not be seen as an undue burden and if anything, it prevents disenfranchisement of the majority of voters who want to actively participate in the process.

 

It's a joke. You are so eager to defend the Ohio Republican Party you can't even keep your position straight for 15 minutes.

 

______

 

The amount of mail I immediately put into the recycling without really looking at is staggering. It would be very easy to miss a postcard saying that you were being removed. I would assume it was a notice of my polling location or something and ignore it without reading it.

 

In 2019 the State of Ohio tried to purge 235,000 from the rolls. Of those 235,000 people, they falsely flagged 40,000 (!) as inactive voters. It took volunteers countless hours over a month to comb through the names being removed and alerting the state that they were illegally removing 17% of the people. 

 

The Republican Party truly doesn't care if they disenfranchised 40,000 voters. They were ready to remove them a month before the next election. The years prior to 2019 they did not release the names of people being purged prior to doing that. They simply purged the voters from the rolls. Now the state will simply purge people from the rolls unless volunteers look through the names and tell them they are breaking the law.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/14/us/politics/ohio-voter-purge.html

2 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

Conservates are like... 

"I want everyone to vote, but only if you vote on election day because absentee and mail-in ballots are deep state communism."

"I want everyone to vote, but we really should add more arbitrary hoops for people to jump through based on endless election fraud gaslighting." 

"I want everyone to vote, but we should definitely reduce the number of days and hours people can do so. And let's reduce those days and hours the most for people who vote for the dirty libs."

"I want everyone to vote, but some votes should count more than others- and I really should be able to pick my voters via extreme gerrymandering and then completely ignore the majority when they seek to end the practice. Also, if you disagree with these tactics as a politician, we'll attempt to throw you out of office." 

"I want everyone to vote, but 18-24-year-olds aren't mature enough to make this decision even as 70 million supposedly mature adults voted for an admitted sexual assaulter and racist."

"I want everyone to vote, but if I don't like who they vote for, I will foment an insurrection and commit widespread fraud across multiple states to undermine the entire democratic system to get what I want." 

"I want everyone to vote, but I will attempt to pass legislation to take away their citizen-initiated amendment process because the people support issues I don't like." 

 

And on

Why would anyone think they want everyone to vote?

2 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

 

 

3 hours ago, ryanlammi said:

 

The vast majority of people don't vote in primaries. They should, because it's more important than the general in most legislative districts in Ohio, but they don't. 

 

 

You literally said you couldn't think of a single state that would purge voters before 12 years. I pointed out Ohio does it in 6 years, and you immediately defend that position.

 

 

It's a joke. You are so eager to defend the Ohio Republican Party you can't even keep your position straight for 15 minutes.

 

______

 

The amount of mail I immediately put into the recycling without really looking at is staggering. It would be very easy to miss a postcard saying that you were being removed. I would assume it was a notice of my polling location or something and ignore it without reading it.

 

In 2019 the State of Ohio tried to purge 235,000 from the rolls. Of those 235,000 people, they falsely flagged 40,000 (!) as inactive voters. It took volunteers countless hours over a month to comb through the names being removed and alerting the state that they were illegally removing 17% of the people. 

 

The Republican Party truly doesn't care if they disenfranchised 40,000 voters. They were ready to remove them a month before the next election. The years prior to 2019 they did not release the names of people being purged prior to doing that. They simply purged the voters from the rolls. Now the state will simply purge people from the rolls unless volunteers look through the names and tell them they are breaking the law.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/14/us/politics/ohio-voter-purge.html

 

But I'm dumb, wholly misinformed and letting my emotions get the better of me for suggesting we don't allow partisan state legislatures to control voter registration. If I had only passed the bar, I could have an opinion. 

Edited October 11, 20231 yr by jonoh81

Reminder that you can now download a vote-by-mail application from your county Board of Elections or vote early in person. Vote by mail is great and it's easy to get a ballot. With the many issues and races on the ballot, it's much easier to make a informed decisions by voting at home and mailing in your ballot. Make sure that you vote so that Brutus doesn't try to purge your voting registration.

2 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

But I'm dumb, wholly misinformed and letting my emotions get the better of me for suggesting we don't allow partisan state legislatures to control voter registration. If I had only passed the bar, I could have an opinion. 

 

Well if Colin Kaepernick hasn't won enough Super Bowls to have an opinion on race you surely don't get to have an opinion on this.

11 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Reminder that you can now download a vote-by-mail application from your county Board of Elections or vote early in person. Vote by mail is great and it's easy to get a ballot. With the many issues and races on the ballot, it's much easier to make a informed decisions by voting at home and mailing in your ballot. Make sure that you vote so that Brutus doesn't try to purge your voting registration.

LOL.  I voted in person yesterday at E. 30th and Euclid.  In and out in less than 15 minutes.  It was't swamped.  There were 19 registration lanes (where you show ID and get your ballot), of which six were manned. Very good experience, no muss, no fuss.

16 hours ago, ryanlammi said:

The vast majority of people don't vote in primaries. They should, because it's more important than the general in most legislative districts in Ohio, but they don't. 

It is voting at least once over a period that includes 2 general elections. It does not matter that you skip a primary.

 

16 hours ago, ryanlammi said:

You are so eager to defend the Ohio Republican Party you can't even keep your position straight for 15 minutes.

I may not personally agree with the threshhold set, however, I am accepting of it as long as it follows a standarized process

 

17 hours ago, ryanlammi said:

The amount of mail I immediately put into the recycling without really looking at is staggering. It would be very easy to miss a postcard saying that you were being removed. I would assume it was a notice of my polling location or something and ignore it without reading it.

 

In 2019 the State of Ohio tried to purge 235,000 from the rolls. Of those 235,000 people, they falsely flagged 40,000 (!) as inactive voters. It took volunteers countless hours over a month to comb through the names being removed and alerting the state that they were illegally removing 17% of the people. 

 

The Republican Party truly doesn't care if they disenfranchised 40,000 voters. They were ready to remove them a month before the next election. The years prior to 2019 they did not release the names of people being purged prior to doing that. They simply purged the voters from the rolls. Now the state will simply purge people from the rolls unless volunteers look through the names and tell them they are breaking the law.

So, here is the thing. this process is not something that has been proposed or going on for 3-4 months. This is pretty much been blessed by the Courts. This has not been enjoined by the courts or courts have not taken a position that the process is illegal.  So from a Federal Court perspective, this process has passed Constitutional muster. 

 

13 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

But I'm dumb, wholly misinformed and letting my emotions get the better of me for suggesting we don't allow partisan state legislatures to control voter registration.

Its ok jonboy.  Don't be so hard on yourself. You do not need to pass the bar to have a valid opinion on a matter, but I would suggest you maybe understanding the facts behind why things are what they are and then figuring out a way to change them within the parameters of the system you are operating in. 

I don't know what the political forum equivalent of thirsty is, but I think we're seeing it.

https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/politics/former-ohio-congressman-ronald-mottl-dies-at-89-years-old/95-f946c026-25c3-40f5-b0d1-e4a4fe5b62f1

22 hours ago, LibertyBlvd said:

https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/politics/former-ohio-congressman-ronald-mottl-dies-at-89-years-old/95-f946c026-25c3-40f5-b0d1-e4a4fe5b62f1

 

TBH I thought he passed away years ago.

So did I.

If you haven't voted yet, please get to it!   It took me 15 minutes at the BOE on Euclid, including walking to/from my car. 

 

Fewer Ohioans have voted early so far ahead of the November election, but more have requested ballots

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio – Slightly fewer Ohioans have voted early ahead of the Nov. 7 election compared to the state’s last election in August. But significantly more have requested absentee ballots, which eventually should translate to higher overall early voting totals.

Through last Friday, which marked two weeks of early voting, 212,133 state voters had cast early ballots, either in person or by filling out and returning an absentee ballot. That’s about 3,600 less than the 215,759 who had voted by the equivalent time ahead of the election last August, according to a cleveland.com / Plain Dealer analysis of state voting data.

 

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2023/10/fewer-ohioans-have-voted-early-so-far-ahead-of-the-november-election-but-more-have-requested-ballots.html

Yeah, we forgot to send in our mail in ballots but we’re definitely not sitting out this one. We rarely do not vote.

The stupid, unconstitutional, and obviously doomed August special election cost Ohio taxpayers $18M.

 

https://www.statenews.org/government-politics/2023-10-31/cost-for-ohios-august-special-election-to-decide-60-voter-approval-amendment-goes-up

 

The cost of the August special election in which voters defeated an amendment to make it harder to change Ohio’s constitution has increased to $18 million. 

That’s well more than the initial estimate from Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose, one of the chief backers of that amendment.

Lawmakers on the state controlling board approved the secretary of state’s request for $2 million from chief financial officer Leslie Piatt, who noted boards of elections worked hard to recruit poll workers.

Ohio Lawmakers Want to End Time Change for Daylight Savings

 

The clocks will fall back this weekend, but Ohio lawmakers are urging Congress to get rid of the time change and make daylight saving time permanent. 

 

The Ohio House State and Local Government Committee passed a resolution Tuesday that urges Congress to enact the Sunshine Uniformity Act of 2023, which would permanently switch Ohio to daylight saving time.

 

House Concurrent Resolution 7, which now goes to the House floor, would not immediately change Ohio clocks. Only federal law could make that change. State Reps. Rodney Creech, R-West Alexandria, and Bob Peterson, R-Sabina introduced the resolution in May. 

 

“We simply no longer need the biannual tradition of changing our clocks,”  Creech said in his testimony. 

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/ohio-lawmakers-want-to-end-time-change-for-daylight-savings-ocj1/

I'm all for permanent DST, but...fair warning, at the peak of winter you'd have 8:50-9:00am sunrises.

14 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

I'm all for permanent DST, but...fair warning, at the peak of winter you'd have 8:50-9:00am sunrises.

This has always been my argument against it. To me, the difference between getting dark at 6pm as opposed to 5 pm is negligible compared to getting light out at 9 am vs 7:30-8 am.

The one year they tried year-round DST it became very unpopular for that very reason and it's apparently why they stopped. Though it also got associated with Nixon right as he was leaving.

3 hours ago, DarkandStormy said:

I'm all for permanent DST, but...fair warning, at the peak of winter you'd have 8:50-9:00am sunrises.

Switch to four day work weeks and we’ll call it a wash. 

1 hour ago, GCrites said:

The one year they tried year-round DST it became very unpopular for that very reason and it's apparently why they stopped. Though it also got associated with Nixon right as he was leaving.

Here's a couple articles on the 1974 experiment with year round DST.

 

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/19/1087280464/the-u-s-tried-permanent-daylight-saving-time-in-the-1970s-then-quickly-rejected-

 

https://www.washingtonian.com/2022/03/15/the-us-tried-permanent-daylight-saving-time-in-the-70s-people-hated-it/

 

Basically we did it for a few months, starting in January of 1974. When the bill passed as a two year experiment in late 1973 it was extremely popular (79% approval in polling), but just three months later in early 1974 it had fallen to 42% approval. It was repealed that August. The first article quotes experts advocating for each of permanent DST, permanent standard time (booooooo! why waste so much daylight in the summer before normal people are asleep?), and the current system (with the argument that it is the least bad of three bad choices). The second article has more details on the 1974 experience.

 

I have a slight preference for permanent DST, but I'm open to the idea that I might dislike it if it actually happened. I REALLY dislike the idea of permanent standard time.

After spending two winters in New England, I really found a new appreciation for how far west Ohio is when we moved back.

November thru the end of Feb, the sun had already set when I left work at 5pm. In December it set at 4:15pm (and rose while I was on my way to work), so it wasn't even still a little bit light when I left in the evening. I worked in a building with no windows, and it was brutal - I made sure to leave the building for lunch so I could see the sun more than an hour per day.

I did a couple ski trips to Vermont many years ago - both times in December.  Yes, the sun sure goes down much earlier there.  Of course on the flip side, it rises earlier than it does here.

 

I don't have a problem with the time change twice a year.  

 

Edited November 17, 20231 yr by LibertyBlvd

6 hours ago, mrCharlie said:

After spending two winters in New England, I really found a new appreciation for how far west Ohio is when we moved back.

November thru the end of Feb, the sun had already set when I left work at 5pm. In December it set at 4:15pm (and rose while I was on my way to work), so it wasn't even still a little bit light when I left in the evening. I worked in a building with no windows, and it was brutal - I made sure to leave the building for lunch so I could see the sun more than an hour per day.

 

That's like when my stores had to keep really long hours for the two weeks leading up to Christmas as required by the malls (these hours were lifted in the late 2010s as customers stopped showing up during the extra hours). I remember never seeing the sun except for during bank runs.

The one certainty in all the time change discussion. No matter what decision is made, people will complain. 

Ohio Gov. DeWine Calls for Ban or Regulation of Delta-8 Products

 

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine wants the state to either ban or regulate delta-8 THC products.

 

But since there’s nothing he can do administratively, he is urging lawmakers to do something in regards to intoxicating hemp products like delta-8. 

 

“I would be very happy to have a ban,” DeWine said during a press conference, holding up packages of Delta 8 — one resembling Frosted Flakes, another looking like Cocoa Puffs and a third that looks like Trolli candy.

 

“It’s up to the legislature. If it is moved basically under the marijuana protocol, you wouldn’t see packaging like that. … and I would be satisfied with that.”

 

Seventeen states have banned delta-8 and seven more have restrictions around it, according to the National Cannabis Industry Association. 

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/ohio-gov-dewine-calls-for-ban-or-regulation-of-delta-8-products-ocj1/