Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

SCOTUS says its alright to drop registered voters off rolls if they don't vote for 2 years...

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by gator_fever, Jun 11, 2018.

  1. BLING

    BLING GC Hall of Fame

    4,758
    350
    273
    Apr 16, 2007
    The plaintiff in the SCOTUS case was a guy, a navy veteran no less, who was told he could not vote because he had been removed from the voter roles. That should NEVER happen IMO. There should be contingencies to prevent it from happening (such as on the spot or automatic registration).
     
  2. philobeddoe

    philobeddoe Premium Member

    6,905
    301
    308
    Apr 11, 2007
    If someone is not voting, they should be purged. Was the person you mentioned stationed oversees? There are still absentee ballots.

    People who move and those who die need to be purged. If someone who's still lives in the particular precinct and who's purged because they've not cast a ballot - early, via absentee, or on election day - can register again. It's not really very difficult. I you don't want to be purged ..... vote.
     
  3. gatorpika

    gatorpika Premium Member

    7,495
    897
    408
    Sep 14, 2008
    He should have been able to fill out a provisional ballot on the spot and had his vote counted once he was reregistered under Ohio law. Not sure if or why that didn't happen.

    https://www.cincinnati.com/story/ne...r-voter-registration-purged-q-and-a/90832028/
     
  4. wgbgator

    wgbgator Very Stable Genius Premium Member

    Apr 19, 2007
    Geo-hell
    Because they don't tell you what your rights are at the polling place and simply hand you a provisional ballot. These things are designed to frustrate and make voting as difficult as possible.
     
    • Agree Agree x 5
  5. diehardgator1

    diehardgator1 Premium Member

    6,361
    225
    383
    Apr 3, 2007
    please dont confuse them with facts You are screwing up their talking points
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  6. diehardgator1

    diehardgator1 Premium Member

    6,361
    225
    383
    Apr 3, 2007
    Voting is a right to vote one time in each election as long as you are a live breathing citizen in good standing of the US.
     
  7. cjgator76

    cjgator76 GC Hall of Fame

    16,973
    109
    558
    Apr 9, 2007
    Please. No form is required to "continue to not vote". You just don't vote.
     
  8. wgbgator

    wgbgator Very Stable Genius Premium Member

    Apr 19, 2007
    Geo-hell
    Indeed, but its not an absolute right. Mandatory voting is the future. If you don't have a good reason not to, you just have to vote.
     
  9. gatorpika

    gatorpika Premium Member

    7,495
    897
    408
    Sep 14, 2008
    Filling out a form is not an undue burden though. I have to fill out a form and wait a few days before I can take a gun home from a local gun store. Having to show an ID to vote is not an undue burden as long as IDs are cheaply and widely available. Mandatory voting isn't likely to ever happen, especially without an amendment. Voting is an individual right, which puts that at the sole discretion of the individual and prohibits the government from interfering with that right. Passing a law requiring voting compels a duty that is in conflict with the right. It's also potentially in conflict with the first amendment as refusing to vote can be seen as a form of political speech.
     
  10. wgbgator

    wgbgator Very Stable Genius Premium Member

    Apr 19, 2007
    Geo-hell
    I don't think you need an amendment for mandatory voting. If filling out a form isn't an undue burden, then filling out a form to request not to vote isn't a burden on your rights either. With automatic registration, vote by mail, and every other modern innovation, there is literally no burden in a person voting if we deigned to make it accommodating enough. Do people think mandatory voting is like making people buy healthcare or rounding them up against their will to go to the polls? Its not.
     
  11. cjgator76

    cjgator76 GC Hall of Fame

    16,973
    109
    558
    Apr 9, 2007
    What’s wrong with having the freedom to decide whether you want to vote?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. wgbgator

    wgbgator Very Stable Genius Premium Member

    Apr 19, 2007
    Geo-hell
    Then what's wrong with having the freedom to decide whether you want to do jury duty or not? Or pay your taxes? Or not having to sign up for selective service? Arent there duties to citizenship?
     
  13. gatorpika

    gatorpika Premium Member

    7,495
    897
    408
    Sep 14, 2008
    Several countries dropped their compulsory voting laws as they recognized that it conflicted with freedom of speech. Not voting is an expressive act that could signal an individual feels the choices offered lack legitimacy among other things. The first amendment already has a corollary right not to speak recognized by the courts, so I would think the courts would extend the same theory to voting. The whole idea that we should be forced to exercise a right is also at odds with our history and culture, so I would think such a proposal wouldn't go too far regardless of the burden analysis.
     
  14. wgbgator

    wgbgator Very Stable Genius Premium Member

    Apr 19, 2007
    Geo-hell
    I don't see why you couldn't carve out an exemption for people based on conscience or that just don't want to vote, just fill out a form. As you yourself said, filling out a form isn't a burden on anyone. As I've argued in the past, impose a fine (aka a tax) for not voting or filling the form not to vote, and boom, you're constitutional. I mean obviously we'd need a world where the courts weren't right wing ghouls bent on curbing voting rights. But expansion of voting and voting rights is a solid start and maybe that's the end game, mandatory voting.
     
  15. Rocinante

    Rocinante All American

    300
    82
    233
    May 28, 2013
    I think all of our base rights should expire if you don’t use them. Can’t own a gun without updating your address every two years, you have no right to bring a first amendment case if you can’t prove you have excersised your Right to free speech in the last two years, same with Religion, need to have a registration with current address every two years to ever claim your religious freedom. Sounds like a wonderful policy in the land of freedom, freedom with a lot of exceptions and limitations.
     
    • Best Post Ever Best Post Ever x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  16. gatorpika

    gatorpika Premium Member

    7,495
    897
    408
    Sep 14, 2008
    What I am saying is your compulsory voting act is likely in conflict with existing rights. So the courts would have to interpret the right to vote as having no corollary right not to vote and also deal with a potential violation of your speech rights. In their argument the government would have to show some compelling government interest in hearing from the people who have no interest in going to the polls. People say that there is a civic duty to vote, but there is also a civic duty to stand and salute the flag and we have already been down that road to determine we can sit, kneel or burn the flag if we want. The burden argument is immaterial to the bigger argument of why we would even want this.
     
  17. cjgator76

    cjgator76 GC Hall of Fame

    16,973
    109
    558
    Apr 9, 2007
    There are duties, but voting isn’t one of them. It’s like saying you have a duty to take all available tax deductions.
     
  18. wgbgator

    wgbgator Very Stable Genius Premium Member

    Apr 19, 2007
    Geo-hell
    The right to vote isn't absolute and comes with restrictions, why would the corollary right to not vote not follow? If the ID restrictions and filling out a form to say that you are still alive aren't burdensome, its hard to argue the same is burdensome on the right not to vote.
     
  19. wgbgator

    wgbgator Very Stable Genius Premium Member

    Apr 19, 2007
    Geo-hell
    According to who? I don't think this is a question that has been definitively answered. This seems like a matter of societal consensus.
     
  20. cjgator76

    cjgator76 GC Hall of Fame

    16,973
    109
    558
    Apr 9, 2007
    I probably should have said it’s never been a duty, at least not in this country.

    I just haven’t seen a good argument for making it mandatory and creating a whole new class of lawbreakers. We have more than enough mandatory chit now.