US Supreme Court rules in favor of Ohio voter purge

When Fascism creeps in using specious and thin arguments:

Respondents point out that Ohio’s Supplemental Process uses a person’s failure to vote twice: once as the trigger for sending return cards and again as one of the requirements for removal. Respondents conclude that this use of nonvoting is illegal.

We reject this argument because the Failure-to-Vote Clause, both as originally enacted in the NVRA and as amended by HAVA, simply forbids the use of nonvoting as the sole criterion for removing a registrant, and Ohio does not use it that way. Instead, as permitted by subsection (d), Ohio removes registrants only if they have failed to vote and have failed to respond to a notice.

The very idea that not (continually) exercising a Constitutional right is grounds for an erosion of that right is such an affront to democracy I don't even know where to start. Aside from the fact we get so much junk mail we end up accidentally throwing away important correspondence on a regular basis, just the process of them "chasing down" non-voters ticks me off. And when it's based on a totally manufactured and proven fake crisis (voter fraud), it's even more infuriating. But I'll let Stephen Breyer do the rest of the talking:

This case concerns the manner in which States maintain federal voter registration lists. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a number of “[r]estrictive registration laws and administrative procedures” came into use across the United States—from literacy tests to the poll tax and from strict residency requirements to “selective purges.” H. R. Rep. No. 103 –9, p. 2 (1993).

Each was designed “to keep certain groups of citizens from voting” and “discourage participation.” Ibid. By 1965, the Voting Rights Act abolished some of the “more obvious impediments to registration,” but still, in 1993, Congress concluded that it had “unfinished business” to attend to in this domain. Id., at 3. That year, Congress enacted the National Voter Registration Act “to protect the integrity of the electoral process,” “increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal office,” and “ensure that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained.” §20501(b).

It did so mindful that “the purpose of our election process is not to test the fortitude and determination of the voter, but to discern the will of the majority.” S. Rep. No. 103 –6, p. 3 (1993).

That last sentence is the key, and it also exposes the main reason behind Republicans' attempts to disrupt the voting process. They are well aware their "approach" to governing is losing popularity, and the majority of citizens already reject that approach. Making Gerrymandering and voter purges the only way they can remain in power.

Oh, and I should also add: Taking away the power of a Democratic President to appoint a Supreme Court Justice, guaranteeing those (plainly) tyrannical and undemocratic abuses of power are not checked, is all part of the descent into Fascism.



The decision hinged on whether you wanted to see discrimination

A writer at Slate really got at the heart of the decision:

Subodh Chandra, a civil rights lawyer in Cleveland who has successfully litigated several voting-rights cases against Ohio, describes the result in Husted as a continuation of the Roberts court’s “pattern of wishing away evidence of red states’ laserlike, targeted discrimination against poorer, minority, Democratic-leaning voters.” Rehnquist denied that pattern existed, Stevens regretted reinforcing it, and Posner openly disavowed it. Alito, we learned on Monday, never even saw it in the first place.