As Twitchy told you earlier, in a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court upheld Ohio’s “use it or lose it” policy of purging inactive voters from voter registration rolls.
And Chuck Schumer’s definitely not the only lefty flipping the hell out:
Breaking: In 5-4 decision Alito reverses 6th circuit & upholds Ohio's purging of infrequent voters. Ohio has purged 2 million voters since 2011, more than any other state. Black voters 2x as likely as whites to be purged in state's largest counties
— Ari Berman (@AriBerman) June 11, 2018
After gutting Voting Rights Act, Republicans now want to kill National Voter Registration Act, one of country's most important voting rights laws. Upholding voter purging in Ohio will have major chilling effect on voting rights https://t.co/yRh1Qbzt4p
— Ari Berman (@AriBerman) June 11, 2018
So let's just say this is legal/constitutional. Is there a single legitimate policy rationale for purging infrequent voters from the rolls? https://t.co/ruJvvDx0tK
— Josh Greenman (@joshgreenman) June 11, 2018
BREAKING: Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision by Justice Alito, allows Ohio (and other states) to purge voters from the rolls for their failure to vote. A massive blow to the Motor Voter Act that will likely lead to a huge amount of disenfranchisement. https://t.co/BA6SHRuSmz
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) June 11, 2018
This is a nightmare scenario for voting rights advocates. SCOTUS has effectively given red states the green light to engage in voter purges that disproportionately affect minority and low-income communities. Sotomayor's dissent is scathing. pic.twitter.com/ORCbXY29vc
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) June 11, 2018
Because of this decision, thousands of voters will show up to the polls in 2018—only to be told that they have been purged from the rolls because they skipped the last few elections. A disproportionate number of them will be minorities, veterans, low-income and disabled people.
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) June 11, 2018
The Roberts Court is rigging the system against the voiceless & the vulnerable. They've ruled to 1) let corporations screw people at work, 2) let those same corporations spend unlimited amounts to rig elections, and 3) allow people to be purged from the rolls just to be safe.
— Brian Fallon (@brianefallon) June 11, 2018
With Trump appointing the judges, the crucial legal fight against voter suppression must be joined by an equally enthusiastic political fight. That’s why I created @LetAmericaVote. https://t.co/1yjQNqHDBZ
— Jason Kander (@JasonKander) June 11, 2018
This is VOTER SUPPRESSION, you guys.
Except no it’s not.
I have never seen a valid argument from the Left that anyone eligible to vote has been 'suppressed.'
— Chad Felix Greene (@chadfelixg) June 11, 2018
And you’re not gonna see one today, either.
They are sent a return card before this ever happens, just as NVRA expressly permits. https://t.co/nahtjNE1zv
— Mo Mo (@molratty) June 11, 2018
How many non-voting years, coupled with no response to a mailed inquiry, should be required before removing someone from the voter rolls? Six? Eight? Ten?
— Jim Geraghty (@jimgeraghty) June 11, 2018
Great question.
Another great question: When will the liberals getting their panties in a wad call out the man who made all this possible? That’s right, we’re talking about William Jefferson Clinton.
Take it up with Bill Clinton. This is his rule. https://t.co/B0RWS59Np7
— Mickey White (@BiasedGirl) June 11, 2018
Fantastic example of a tweet that totally ignores federal law, signed by Bill Clinton & written by Congressional Democrats, that requires voter-roll purges. https://t.co/JN1KGC5egD
— Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) June 11, 2018
Well, that’s awkward.
If somebody hasn't voted in six years, even through hugely contested presidential elections, & doesn't respond to their mail, they've already suppressed their own vote.
(Also, federal law signed by Bill Clinton *requires* purges of voter rolls). https://t.co/By5PqvvvD3
— Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) June 11, 2018
Justice Alito's response, in full, to Justice Sotomayor's dissent is all the more brutal for being concise. pic.twitter.com/WV9esRpUst
— Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) June 11, 2018
Seriously, just count in your timeline how many liberals are flipping their wigs about "voter suppression" without acknowledging that a federal law written by a Democratic Congress & signed by Bill Clinton requires purges of ineligible voters from the rolls.
— Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) June 11, 2018
More from Dan McLaughlin at NRO:
The Court was not asked to decide if states are allowed to purge names from the voter rolls. Federal law requires them to do so. That law, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, was written by congressional Democrats, passed with the votes of every single Democratic senator and 238 of the 252 Democrats in the House at the time (including Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, Steny Hoyer, and James Clyburn) and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The NVRA, also known as the “motor voter” law, expanded voter registration in a number of ways, but it also formally recognized the legitimate interests of states in periodically updating their lists of voters so they are limited to people actually still residing in a place where they are eligible to vote, and commanded them to do something about it:
NVRA requires States to “conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names” of voters who are ineligible “by reason of ” death or change in residence. §20507(a)(4).
Shoot. Looks like 2018 Chuck Schumer had better hop into the Wayback Machine and give his 1993 self a talking-to!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member