Is it a non-zero risk? That is, might there be someone who hasn't voted in eight years who doesn't respond to the mailing and is made inactive as a result? Yes. Do I think there are a lot of those people? No.
-
-
-
To be clear, I am very sympathetic to the arguments about disenfranchisement - but as methods for list maintenance improve, knowing what's allowed/not very helpful. What's the line about the importance sometimes of law being certain more than just?
-
Not sure why that clarity would be missing had the case come out the other way.
-
I didn't say it wouldn't - had the Court come down and said "non-voting data is impermissible" that would have been just as clear. My point is that someone(s) was going to be disappointed either way; now we know the answer to an important yes or no question. Hence, "clarity."
-
Maybe not--though Court affirms OH's practice, it sets *zero* limits on what states can do. Is this unfettered discretion? Is there some other meaningful limit on a state's voter purge practices if even more disenfranchisement? All that's clear is states have lots of authority.
-
That's not a huge change from the status quo. I'd also be shocked - SHOCKED - if there isn't follow-on litigation related to any expansion/alteration of this procedure. It is Ohio, after all. But on the question of "is non-voting data fair game?" we now know the answer is yes.
-
More litigation often means prior answer wasn't super clear. Yes, it's clear OH can use *this* procedure. I'm not sure that's a positive.
-
I don't think we should discount other incentives at work in the states. They want to keep voter lists up to date. Believe it or not, they actually don't want to disenfranchise voters (even if they think it helps them politically, which most don't, they don't need the headache).
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.