Ohio May Move Forward With Inactive, Infrequent Voter Purge, Fed Court Rules

A federal judge in Columbus, Ohio sided with the state Wednesday night and upheld their ongoing practice of purging millions of inactive voters from the rolls.

Ohioans who do not vote in three consecutive federal elections automatically have their registrations cancelled. In 2015, that meant that roughly 40,000 people living in Ohio’s largest county — largely low-income and minority voters — were disenfranchised. Over the last five years, roughly two million people have been removed from the rolls.

The key point in this ruling is "inactive voters," which essentially means anyone who has not voted in three consecutive federal elections has their registrations cancelled. Unfortunately, this disproportionately affects minority voters, who are largely democratic voters, in a key battleground state in a very highly charged election unlike many have ever seen. Sure, they can re-register, but first they have to KNOW they have been purged, and I doubt the state will send out letters.

Yet a recently-released Reuters analysis found that far more Democrats than Republicans are being purged in Ohio’s most populous counties.

The investigation found that in Ohio’s major cities, including Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati, voters have been removed from the rolls in Democratic-leaning neighborhoods at about twice the rate as in Republican neighborhoods. In some neighborhoods in Cincinnati with a high proportion of poor, African-American residents, as much as 10 percent of the voting population has been purged. Because Democratic voters have lower turnout rates for mid-term, off-year elections, they are at greater risk of being purged.

This should be illegal, imo, yet here we have a federal court ruling that the state may do this simply because people might not have voted recently and are considered "inactive voters." And the judge's rationale?

ensure the integrity of the election process.

Because what says integrity like purging lawful citizens' registration simply for not being a "current" voter.

How this is legal or constitutional, I'm not sure. It's not as if they have to make room for new voters, or that these voters become obsolete simply from inactivity.

ACLU Senior Policy Director Mike Brickner told ThinkProgress he and his colleagues are now looking at appealing the ruling.

“We believe Ohio’s current system is unconstitutional and violates federal law,” he said. “The election is coming up soon and we need to act quickly. We want to make sure they don’t disenfranchise thousands of people.”

Welcome to 'Murica.

Reuters
Thinkprogress1
Thinkprogress2
Cleaveland.com

I have to renew my drivers license more often.
They will just have to register again.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
I have to renew my drivers license more often.
They will just have to register again.

Do you think it's ok to purge registration for inactive or infrequent voters without telling them they have been purged, and they therefore can't vote until they re-register?

originally posted by: Bluntone22
I have to renew my drivers license more often.
They will just have to register again.

Yes, I have to renew my driver's license every 10 years on my birthday. Driving is a privilege though, not a right. They want to make sure I can see, as well. I have to submit to or upload an eye test.

This is a blatant grab at voter disenfranchisement. If they can't get an ID law passed and if they can't redraw the voting districts, they will do this. I find it unconstitutional. I believe it will not withstand appeal.

a reply to: Liquesence

Yet a recently-released Reuters analysis found that far more Democrats than Republicans are being purged in Ohio’s most populous counties.

Could also mean many "names" were not real to begin with.

Shocker.

Probably a move to prevent long-term non-voters voting for Trump this election.

Kasich is such a sore loser lol

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: Bluntone22
I have to renew my drivers license more often.
They will just have to register again.

Do you think it's ok to purge registration for inactive or infrequent voters without telling them they have been purged, and they therefore can't vote until they re-register?

Can they not count back 3 (federal) elections, acknowledge/remember that they havent voted, finally realizing that means they must re-register? Do they need a letter to count to 3?

a reply to: Liquesence

Heh. Maybe we can get a court somewhere to rule that if a person doesn't get into a car accident in 3 consecutive years, their insurance will be refunded. Or if they don't get sick in 3 consecutive years, they will get paid vacation time and a paid for vacation.

Doubt it. You have the right to vote. But only if you DO vote, otherwise, you need to reregister and hopefully that paperwork goes through in time for your "vote to matter"

a reply to: Liquesence

You shouldn't need permission from the state to exercise a right.

This is bull####.

Right, pay your taxes, and do what we tell you. Just STFU you old, poor and minority "voters"...we know what's best for you, the corporate oligarchy has your best interest in mind.

a reply to: xuenchen

Agreed.

My first thought when reading the op was "This won't be good for hillary."

originally posted by: six67seven

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: Bluntone22
I have to renew my drivers license more often.
They will just have to register again.

Do you think it's ok to purge registration for inactive or infrequent voters without telling them they have been purged, and they therefore can't vote until they re-register?

Can they not count back 3 (federal) elections, acknowledge/remember that they havent voted, finally realizing that means they must re-register? Do they need a letter to count to 3?

Why should they have to?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Liquesence

You shouldn't need permission from the state to exercise a right.

This is bull####.

I agree.

Of course, one also has to register to legally vote anyway, and some might argue that in itself is unconstitutional.

Why not automatic voter registration for every citizen upon turning 18, which can only be taken away by death or a felony conviction (that is reinstated after parole)? Of course, people might have to renew or update (local and state) registration if they move out of and into another district, which is reasonable enough.

a reply to: Liquesence

That sounds practical and fair.

Which is why it'll never happen.

Humm, I thought it was illegal to take away the right of citizens to vote.

Unless this is about people that are still in the list that are death, or with multiple names.

I worked once for the presidential elections in 1978, back in the days we used to go house to house to register voters, I remember how many people were in the long list we were given and that no longer were residents in the address provided, were death or their names were bogus.

My brother works for the department of elections in PR as a computer programmer for the elections for the last 30 years and his job is to update the electoral data in the Island, thankfully is all done today by computer, because walking around with a heavy list in your hands house to house was a killer and it was all volunteer work.

a reply to: olaru12

Are you claiming that minorities are incapable/not intelligent enough to be able to do something as simple as registering to vote/voting?

I'm asking-because I'm sure your response to my asking you a simple question will be something like " Stop trying to put words in my mouth"-as it usually is when minority panderers are asked that question.

Perhaps we should go back to the voting requirements of our founding fathers....

Only white, male landowners have a right to vote.

www.history.org...

a reply to: olaru12

Keep trying-nobody cares about crap that doesn't happen anymore.

a reply to: reldra

This is a blatant grab at voter disenfranchisement. If they can't get an ID law passed and if they can't redraw the voting districts, they will do this. I find it unconstitutional. I believe it will not withstand appeal.

Yep.

If you can't win fairly or honestly, change the game or the rules to work in your favor.

Slimeball tactics.

a reply to: Liquesence

If you can't win fairly or honestly, change the game or the rules to work in your favor.

When was this particular rule "changed?"

It's similar to the practice of my state, and that has been going on since the first time I registered to vote. And I don't like to think about how long ago that was. My state, btw, has a very strong Democrat bent.

www.wikihow.com...