The U.S. Supreme Court will hear Husted v A. Philip Randolph Institute on Wednesday, November 8. This is the case over whether Ohio is purging voters from the voting rolls too frequently. The lower court had ruled against the Ohio Secretary of State. Thanks to Thomas Jones for this news.
What percentage of voters move out of their precincts or die each day, month, year, 4 year Prez term ???
You are mischaracterizing the issue.
Federal law says that you can’t purge voters for not voting. Federal law also requires states to keep their voting rolls up to date, removing deceased voters, and those who have moved. In particular it permits voters who don’t vote for two federal elections after contact is lost to be purged.
If Oregon or Washington send out a mail ballot, and it is returned as undeliverable, they can began the process of tracking down the voter. If they can’t find the voter to confirm that they have moved within the state (in which case they can be re-registered) or moved out of the state (and can be dropped from Washington rolls), they are placed on “inactive” status. Two federal elections later and they can be purged.
Texas sends out a voter certificate every two years, if one of these can not be delivered, then it triggers the process of attempting to track down the voter.
In Ohio, if a voter has no contact for two years, including not voting, or changing their address, counties send out a notice. If it can’t be delivered, it triggers the beginning of the process.
Ohio does not purge for failing to vote, but does purge for (1) failing to vote; (2) failing to make contact; AND (3) failing to vote in the next two federal elections.
The federal district court ruled in favor of Ohio. The 6th Circuit overturned the district court, saying that initiating the process based on not voting was tantamount to purging because someone did not vote.
The SCOTUS took the appeal of the 6th Circuit decision. There is a contrary opinion from another circuit. The United States (DOJ) has filed an amicus brief in support of Ohio.
The issue hinges on the interpretation of two conflicting federal statutes. Congress could clarify the issue, but that would require action on their part, and that simply IS NOT done. Senator McConnell when asked, reportedly said, “wobble, wobble, wobble” (phonetic).
For the SCOTUS hacks —
Is registration part of being an Elector-Voter in each State regime ??? —
dead Const Art. I, Sec 2.
ie — no valid registration = no valid Elector-Voter (and vice-versa) ???
Most recent Fed law applies ???
North Dakota does not have voter registration. In states which permit election day registration, most new registrations occur at the voting place (same-day states don’t have to have motor voter). Congress presumably regulates registration under the 14th Amendment.
If the federal government issued ID cards, they could simply report to the states when a citizen changed their domicile, and leave it up to the state whether this constituted registration. If it did not, then Congress could simply dock the state’s representation in Congress.
Ohio argued unsuccessfully that the most recent federal law applied (the one that permits purging after missed federal elections after not being able to contact the voter to establish his residence). The 6th Circuit panel on a 2-1 decision decided that they could harmonize the two laws and divine what Congress intended.