There is (and has been for quite some time) a push from Democrats to allow those who should not be allowed to vote to remain on active voting rolls. The reason for this is that much of the country which is legally allowed to vote has no interest in voting for a Democrat. So, they have to get their checkmarks anyway that they can, even it means defiling what American voting is supposed to about in the process.
The Daily Caller has some news that is going to send those sort of liberals into a horrified panic as a new decision is going to impact the voter rolls in a huge way. The Supreme Court “hinted it may allow states more flexibility to remove registered voters from state rolls during” during some very heated debating which took place on Wednesday.
The case being mulled over was that of Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute and deals with “Ohio’s registry maintenance policy.” Those in that state who do not vote in a federal election “are issued a confirmation notice by mail.” If the voter does not return that notice and then does not vote over the next four years, the voter is eliminated from the voting rolls.
This is a very dangerous idea for those that are infirmed, who have moved, or who may have changed residences without filing a change of address post office card. Still, it will help to protect the state against voter fraud, a real concern in a swing state that is deeply shaded purple.
The state claims that this program works to weed out those who “have died or moved to different jurisdictions” so that the names can not be used to pad votes for others.
The A. Philip Randolph Institute (APRI), a civil rights front, “challenged the policy in court” due to the fact that a pair of federal laws bars states from removing voters “by reason of the person’s failure to vote.” The confirmation notices are legal, they claim, but not the removal from the rolls.
“Your vote is your voice,” declared the ACLU’s Jennifer Bellamy. “We are fighting in every state to protect and expand the right to vote.” While the first part of the statement is entirely true, wouldn’t someone who cared about their voice within the parameters of democracy vote at least once in four years?
Justice Sonia Sotomayor has said this negatively effects “marginalized groups,” but this is a baseless claim since the same rules apply to those who are not marginalized and who ignore their civic duty to such a degree that the state wonders if they are even alive. Such groups have all of the rights to absentee voting, poll booths, and election facts as those who may be the richest in our society.
A ruling is expected in June and many are waiting with baited breath to see just how this pans out.
In the meanwhile, it will be amusing to watch Democrats falling over themselves trying to find some way to keep those illegitimate votes coming their way.
Source: The Daily Caller