So SCOTUS handed
down a decision in regards to Ohio removing *inactive* voters from it's rolls. Headlines blared that "minorities" and "the poor" would be disenfranchised, the sun would explode and all life on earth would cease to exist. Except roaches, because they can survive anything. So, per usual, I decided to read the actual decision rather than trusting the talking heads to tell me what I should think about it. As usual I found that the talking heads are intent on insulting my intelligence and negating the agency of the black and the poor. So let's first look at what the decision actually said in regards to the law:
The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) addresses the removal of ineligible voters from state voting rolls, 52 U. S. C. §20501(b), includ- ing those who are ineligible “by reason of” a change in residence, §20507(a)(4). The Act prescribes requirements that a State must meet in order to remove a name on change-of-residence grounds, §§20507(b), (c), (d). The most relevant of these are found in subsec- tion (d), which provides that a State may not remove a name on change-of-residence grounds unless the registrant either (A) confirms in writing that he or she has moved or (B) fails to return a pread- dressed, postage prepaid “return card” containing statutorily pre- scribed content and then fails to vote in any election during the peri- od covering the next two general federal elections.
So to summarize, it is the law, already that if you fail to vote in two federal elections, that if you fail to respond to a postcard asking if you still live in the district, you can be removed from the rolls. Here's the important part:
fails to return a pread- dressed, postage prepaid “return card” containing statutorily pre- scribed content
The state, at taxpayer expense, sends an individual a pre-addressed and PRE-PAID postcard. All the voter has to do is indicate that they are still living in the district and drop the card in the postbox. No money need be expended. No writing is needed. Check the box, drop in mailbox. How hard is this?
In addition to these specific change-of-residence requirements, the NVRA also contains a general “Failure-to-Vote Clause,” §20507(b)(2), consisting of two parts. It first provides that a state removal pro- gram “shall not result in the removal of the name of any per- son . . . by reason of the person’s failure to vote.” Second, as added by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), it specifies that “nothing in [this prohibition] may be construed to prohibit a State from using the procedures” described above—sending a return card and remov- ing registrants who fail to return the card and fail to vote for the req- uisite time. Since one of the requirements for removal under subsec- tion (d) is the failure to vote, the explanation added by HAVA makes clear that the Failure-to-Vote Clause’s prohibition on removal “by reason of the person’s failure to vote” does not categorically preclude using nonvoting as part of a test for removal. Another provision makes this point even more clearly by providing that “no registrant may be removed solely by reason of a failure to vote.” §21083(a)(4)(A) (emphasis added).
Respondents contend that Ohio’s process for removing voters on change-of-residence grounds violates this federal law. The Ohio pro- cess at issue relies on the failure to vote for two years as a rough way of identifying voters who may have moved. It sends these nonvoters a preaddressed, postage prepaid return card, asking them to verify that they still reside at the same address. Voters who do not return the card and fail to vote in any election for four more years are pre- sumed to have moved and are removed from the rolls.
So to get kicked off the Ohio voter rolls, you have to have NOT voted for 4 years
in addition to not returning the
pre-paid and
pre-addressed postcard that was sent to your house at the expense of the taxpayer.
Let's just pause here and think about that.
Now lets look at the arguments that were made:
(4) Respondents’ additional argument—that so many registered voters discard return cards upon receipt that the failure to send cards back is worthless as evidence that an addressee has moved—is based on a dubious empirical conclusion that conflicts with the congression- al judgment found in subsection (d). Congress clearly did not think that the failure to send back a return card was of no evidentiary val- ue, having made that conduct one of the two requirements for remov- al under subsection (d). Pp. 15–16.
So lets understand here. People who are being represented by these groups are soooooooooo interested in voting that when they are sent a
pre-paid and
pre-addressed postcard, at taxpayer's expense to verify their address, they toss the paper in the garbage. It's almost as if these people don't give a damn about the process of voting.
How do you stand up in court with an argument that your clients didn't care enough about the issue you are representing them for to actually respond to a
pre-paid and
pre-addressed card sent to them in regards to the issue?
Hey, if you're too lazy to ensure you are registered to vote in addition to not voting then why are we even having the discussion?
those 1.5 million notices, Ohio only received back about 60,000 return cards (or 4%) which said, in effect, “You are right, Ohio. I have, in fact, moved.” Ibid. In addition, Ohio received back about 235,000 return cards which said, in effect, “You are wrong, Ohio, I have not moved.” In the end, however, there were more than 1,000,000 notices—the vast majority of notices sent—to which Ohio received back no return card at all. Ibid.
If 1.5 million notices went out and of that 1 million of them went unresponsive AND failed to vote in any district in 4 years, how important is voting to these persons? Serious question. I'm having a hard time being sympathetic to people who claim to value their vote who fail to vote in any federal election and do not take the small effort to confirm their residency. Here's Breyer again:
the failure to respond to a forwardable notice is an irrelevant factor in terms of what it shows about whether that registrant changed his or her residence. To add an irrelevant factor to a failure to vote, say, a factor like having gone on vacation or having eaten too large a meal, cannot change Ohio’s sole use of “failure to vote” into something it is not.
How is it irrelevant? Breyer spent a lot of time contradicting himself in his dissent. If you get a notice saying, in effect: "Hey we noticed you didn't vote in the last election. Do you still live here?" and you fail to respond and then continue not to vote, that it is not reasonable to think that the person no longer lives at that address? That they may be deceased (you'd be surprised at the number of deceased people voting). They may have moved a block over, which threw them into a new district. The district may have been re-mapped and the voter no longer is in the same district as before. It is not solely the act of not voting. It is the act of not voting in addition to the lack of response to the residency query. What Breyer wants to do is the programmatically equivalent of:
if [ Person != Vote ]; then
can't do shit.
exit
fi
Rather than what the law actually allows:
if [person != vote]; then
check residence
if [ !$response ]; then
TwoElectionCycles
elif [ $response = "non-resident" ]; then
purge
elif [ $response = "resident" ]; then
exit
fi
else
exit
fi
TwoElectionCycles()
if [ $twocyclesmissed ]; then
purge
else
exit
fi
Fun for you programmers out there.
But clearly the two programs show that Ohio is not using nonvoting as the reason to remove a voter. Rather not voting is a trigger for a query in regards to residency which is then used in conjunction with continued non-voting as grounds for removal.
Now I do think Breyer has a point in regards to
forwardable mail. If Ohio is not using forwarded mail, then it may have an issue. But now onto Sotomayor....*eye roll*
First, as also mentioned by Breyer:
‘[r]estrictive registration laws and administrative proce- dures’ came to use across the United States.” Ante, at 1–2 (opinion of BREYER, J.). States enforced “poll tax[es], literacy tests, residency requirements, selective purges, . . . and annual registration requirements,” which were developed “to keep certain groups of citizens from voting.”
This is not the 1950s or 1960s. Enough of this.
“discrimina- tory and unfair registration laws and procedures can have a direct and damaging effect on voter participation . . . and disproportionately harm voter participation by various groups, including racial minorities.”
Because racial minorities are to lazy to put a
pre-paid and
pre-addressed postcard in the mailbox like "racial majorities" can. OK.
while States are required to make a “reasonable effort” to re- move ineligible voters from the registration lists, §20507(a)(4), such removal programs must be developed in a manner that “prevent[s] poor and illiterate voters from being caught in a purge system which will require them to needlessly re-register” and “prevent[s] abuse which has a disparate impact on minority communities,” S. Rep. No. 103–6, at 18.
Poor people cannot put
pre-paid and
pre-addressed postcards sent to them at taxpayer expense into the nearest postbox.
Minorities cannot put
pre-paid and
pre-addressed postcards sent to them at taxpayer expense into the nearest postbox.
I know this seems repetitive but this is the crux of the statement. All the legalese is cover for the above, oft repeated statement.
Oh and notice the "disparate impact" statement. Wherever lefties want to avoid having to explain how something is actual discrimination, they roll out "disparate impact".
At best, purged voters are forced to “needlessly reregister” if they decide to vote in a subsequent election; at worst, they are prevented from voting at all because they never receive information about when and where elections are taking place.
So we are to believe that the 1 million people who Breyer previously said were extremely likely to still be living at the address they originally registered in, who didn't give a good damn about voting in no less than 3 federal elections AND failed to put
pre-paid and
pre-addressed postcards sent to them at taxpayer expense into the nearest postbox are so concerned about being "prevented from voting". Seriously.
Now watch this:
It is unsurprising in light of the history of such purge
programs that numerous amici report that the Supple- mental Process has disproportionately affected minority, low-income, disabled, and veteran voters. As one example, amici point to an investigation that revealed that in Ham- ilton County, “African-American-majority neighborhoods in downtown Cincinnati had 10% of their voters removed due to inactivity” since 2012, as “compared to only 4% of voters in a suburban, majority-white neighborhood.” Brief for National Association for the Advancement of Colored People et al. as Amici Curiae 18–19. Amici also explain at length how low voter turnout rates, language-access prob- lems, mail delivery issues, inflexible work schedules, and transportation issues, among other obstacles, make it more difficult for many minority, low-income, disabled, homeless, and veteran voters to cast a ballot or return a notice, rendering them particularly vulnerable to unwar- ranted removal under the Supplemental Process.
First: Why are people with " language-access prob- lems," voting in American elections? English proficiency is a requirement of naturalization and English is the default, though not official, language of the United States. Nobody voting in American elections should have "language access problems". If they do, then someone committed fraud when bestowing citizenship on said person.
Second: How exactly does "inflexible work schedules" prevent a person from dropping a
pre-paid and
pre-addressed postcards sent to them at taxpayer expense into the nearest postbox? Even if you're disabled. I you can get mail, you can send it. If you are homeless, then you have no residency and therefore you can't vote. How does being a veteran prevent you from putting a
pre-paid and
pre-addressed postcards sent to them at taxpayer expense into the nearest postbox? Seriously. Do we expect anything from citizens other than taxes these days?
Our democracy rests on the ability of all individuals, regardless of race, income, or status, to exercise their right to vote.
I missed the part where the Ohio law said that it was only going to pick on non-white residents. Or maybe the part about only white residents were to be targeted. I'm missing the part of the evidence that Ohio was systematically messing up the black residents by sending them different postcards or changing the mail pickup and delivery schedules so that the postcards couldn't be sent or returned.
Communities that are disproportionately affected by unnecessarily harsh registration laws should not toler- ate efforts to marginalize their influence in the political process, nor should allies who recognize blatant unfairness stand idly by.
Because "communities" that are not white should not be expected to drop
pre-paid and
pre-addressed postcards sent to them at taxpayer expense into the nearest postbox. Because that's just too hard.
In the end, Sotomayor thinks that black people are lazy. That's the bottom line. If you require black people to make any effort whatsoever it's discrimination.
Lastly, per the CNN article:
Just last week, Sotomayor appeared before the liberal American Constitution Society and spoke about her style.
She was asked if she felt the "weight of being the only woman of color on the court."
"Yes," she responded. "To the extent that I speak frankly in my decisions, and directly, it's because I want people to understand what I am saying, not in legal terms, but in legal terms that touch the heart. I want people to understand the consequences of law and how it affects them."
Never mind that Clarence Thomas "
who grew up in a sharecropper's shack in Georgia" is on the court. You'd think the opinion of a person who actually lived the segregation of the US would be also be given consideration. But CNN didn't even think to consider that 'cause you know, if you don't think a certain way your opinion (or facts) on a matter don't matter.
