Complaint could make up to 234K Wisconsin voters ineligible

[dixon01767]

You have a short memory, don't you? I already said the burden is on the voter. A person who wants to vote should proactively ensure that she can. The larger point, as I again already said, is that certain conservative forces are so determined to win elections that they will strip American citizens of the ability to vote. That takes a special kind of malice.

You should complain to the Wisconsin Legislature who enacted the law specifying 30 days. Not the conservatives who think the laws should be followed as written.

 

[Nalu]

You should complain to the Wisconsin Legislature who enacted the law specifying 30 days. Not the conservatives who think the laws should be followed as written.

This will probably go over your head, but I can do both of those things. I'll send a quick note to the WI legislature and even better because I don't vote or pay income tax in WI, notes to my family and friends who do live there and are constituents of that legislature. I won't send a letter to the law firm, though, because individuals and entities that do what they are doing are too lost to be saved anyway.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I have this impression you aren't actually trying to communicate.

No, just pointing out that typographical errors can sometimes transform "AntiCynical" into "AntiCinical".

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

That's great. I'm obsessed with voting, so I make sure to update my registration every time I move too. Unfortunately, not all people are as civically minded as you and I are. So what we have here is a piece of **** conservative law firm going to court to remove the right to vote from some 234,000 people because they think it will benefit Republicans. Absent any sort of notice from the government, the court, or the law firm itself, some of these people won't know that they've been un-enrolled until they try to vote, can't, and it's too late to do anything about it. The burden is on the voter, true, but it takes a particularly evil entity to go out of its way to disenfranchise voters for no reason other than partisan manipulation of the democracy.

Since each and every one of those 234,000 people is directly and personally affected by this law suit, I think that it would be appropriate for the courts to defer any consideration of the merits of the claim until the Plaintiff can satisfy the courts that it has served each person on the list of 234,000 names with notice of the action, and then, for those that the Plaintiff has been unable to personally serve, applied for, been granted, and complied with appropriate orders for substitutional service (after, of course, detailing exactly what steps were taken in order to locate and serve each and every one of the people that the Plaintiff was unable to personally serve with notice of the action.

At around $60.00 per successful service, that shouldn't cost much more than $14,040,000 assuming that everyone gets served on the first attempt and isn't likely to exceed $56,160,000 if repeated tries, skip tracing, and orders for substitutional service are required.

Averaging those out, is a paltry $35,100,000 too much to ask people whose sole interest is in the preservation of the integrity of the democratic process to put out?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

You should complain to the Wisconsin Legislature who enacted the law specifying 30 days. Not the conservatives who think the laws should be followed as written.

Actually the "specified 30 days" does not start to run until AFTER the notices have been mailed out.

The Wisconsin legislation does specify that "No later than June 15 following each general election, the commission shall examine the registration records for each municipality and identify each elector who has not voted within the previous 4 years if qualified to do so during that entire period ...". (A link which, hopefully will work for you. Should it not, I suggest that you read Chapter 6, Subchapter II, Section 6.50.)

However it continues "... and shall mail a notice to the elector in substantially the following form".

That can mean either:

1. BOTH the examination and mailing must be done no later than "June 15 following each general election"; or
   *
2. the EXAMINATION must be done no later than "June 15 following each general election" but the MAILING does not have to take place until such time afterwards as is "appropriate".

Now obviously the first option is not always achievable and the only feasible option in all cases is the second one.

How long afterwards is "appropriate" is (absent specific statutory direction) an internal administrative matter and the Wisconsin Electoral Commission has control over its own internal administrative matters.

PS - It is of such nitpicking that large legal fees are obtained.

 

[dixon01767]

This will probably go over your head, but I can do both of those things..

????? Pretty simple concept. You advocate not following the laws you disagree with until you can get them changed to what you would prefer.

 

[Nalu]

????? Pretty simple concept. You advocate not following the laws you disagree with until you can get them changed to what you would prefer.

What? Try to stay in the real world whenever you post to me. Voters have to update their registration when they move. How many times have I said that in this thread? Conservative law firms, politicians, political parties, private interest groups, etc. have to disenfranchise people because Republicans can't win enough elections if they're free and fair.

 

[dixon01767]

Actually the "specified 30 days" does not start to run until AFTER the notices have been mailed out.

The Wisconsin legislation does specify that "No later than June 15 following each general election, the commission shall examine the registration records for each municipality and identify each elector who has not voted within the previous 4 years if qualified to do so during that entire period ...". (A link which, hopefully will work for you. Should it not, I suggest that you read Chapter 6, Subchapter II, Section 6.50.)

However it continues "... and shall mail a notice to the elector in substantially the following form".

That can mean either:

1. BOTH the examination and mailing must be done no later than "June 15 following each general election"; or
   *
2. the EXAMINATION must be done no later than "June 15 following each general election" but the MAILING does not have to take place until such time afterwards as is "appropriate".

Now obviously the first option is not always achievable and the only feasible option in all cases is the second one.

How long afterwards is "appropriate" is (absent specific statutory direction) an internal administrative matter and the Wisconsin Electoral Commission has control over its own internal administrative matters.

PS - It is of such nitpicking that large legal fees are obtained.

???? All irrelevant here since the examination and mailing has already occurred.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

???? All irrelevant here since the examination and mailing has already occurred.

You might not have noticed it, and I admit that I was remiss in not pointing it out that the requisite notice was to be

... shall mail a notice to the elector in SUBSTANTIALLY the following FORM:

NOTICE OF SUSPENSION OF REGISTRATION
​

You are hereby notified that your voter registration will be suspended, according to state law, for failure to vote within the previous 4-year period, unless you apply for continuation of your registration within 30 days. You may continue your registration by signing the statement below and returning it to the office of the municipal clerk .... (mailing address and telephone number of office of municipal clerk or board of election commissioners) by mail or in person. ...
​

the key words are as in bold face and the critical words have been capitalized and the vital word is in red.

If you will examine that section closely, you will see that it does NOT mandate any specific words, only set out a FORM that has to be SUBSTANTIALLY followed.

Did you know that

• "You are hereby notified that your voter registration will be suspended, according to state law, for failure to vote within the previous 4-year period, unless you apply for continuation of your registration within 3 days.";
  *
• "You are hereby notified that your voter registration will be suspended, according to state law, for failure to vote within the previous 4-year period, unless you apply for continuation of your registration within 30 days.", and
  *
• "You are hereby notified that your voter registration will be suspended, according to state law, for failure to vote within the previous 4-year period, unless you apply for continuation of your registration within 300 days."

are ALL in EXACTLY the same FORM?

Yes, I agree that terminating a voter's registration after giving them no more than 30 days notice was what the Wisconsin legislature probably INTENDED to do. Unfortunately that is NOT what the actual words of the actual legislation as actually passed DID do. If the Wisconsin legislature had actually intended to make it MANDATORY for the Elections Commission to specify exactly 30 days, then if should have passed legislation that said

... shall mail a notice to the elector -in substantially the following form- as follows:

NOTICE OF SUSPENSION OF REGISTRATION
​

You are hereby notified that your voter registration will be suspended, according to state law, for failure to vote within the previous 4-year period, unless you apply for continuation of your registration within 30 days. You may continue your registration by signing the statement below and returning it to the office of the municipal clerk .... (mailing address and telephone number of office of municipal clerk or board of election commissioners) by mail or in person. ...
​

and, unfortunately (for some) the actual words of the actual law that is actually passed take precedence over the intended words of the intended law that was not passed.

Can you see the difference between

• It shall NOT be allowed to spit on the sidewalks on Sundays between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.;
  *
  and
  *
• It shall be allowed to spit on the sidewalks on Sundays between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.?

Would the second make it illegal to spit on the sidewalks on Sundays between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. EVEN IF that was what the legislature had INTENDED to do?

Would either of them make it illegal to spit on the sidewalks at time other than Sundays between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.?
​

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

As further evidence of sloppy drafting, you will note that the legislation does NOT specify WHEN (after the 30 day period) the voter's registration will be suspended.

As even further evidence of incredibly sloppy drafting, that the voter's registration is only "suspended" and that does NOT mean that the voter is NOT "registered to vote" any more than "suspending" a person's driver's license means that they do not have a driver's licence. A good (read as "can be made without bursting into fits of giggles") case can be made that a person who is denied their right to vote because a state agency has "suspended" their voter's registration has been unlawfully denied their right to vote.

Once again, it is of such nitpicking that large legal fees are constructed.

PS - Did you happen to notice that the 15[sup]nd[/sup] Amendment does NOT prohibit a state from denying a person the right to vote because of political beliefs? In fact, since "incarceration" is also "penal servitude" a strong case can be made that denying a felon the right to vote is a violation of the 15[sup]nd[/sup] Amendment (which does not differentiate between various forms of servitude).

 

[dixon01767]

You might not have noticed it, and I admit that I was remiss in not pointing it out that the requisite notice was to be

... shall mail a notice to the elector in SUBSTANTIALLY the following FORM:

NOTICE OF SUSPENSION OF REGISTRATION
​

You are hereby notified that your voter registration will be suspended, according to state law, for failure to vote within the previous 4-year period, unless you apply for continuation of your registration within 30 days. You may continue your registration by signing the statement below and returning it to the office of the municipal clerk .... (mailing address and telephone number of office of municipal clerk or board of election commissioners) by mail or in person. ...
​

the key words are as in bold face and the critical words have been capitalized and the vital word is in red.

If you will examine that section closely, you will see that it does NOT mandate any specific words, only set out a FORM that has to be SUBSTANTIALLY followed.

Did you know that

• "You are hereby notified that your voter registration will be suspended, according to state law, for failure to vote within the previous 4-year period, unless you apply for continuation of your registration within 3 days.";
  *
• "You are hereby notified that your voter registration will be suspended, according to state law, for failure to vote within the previous 4-year period, unless you apply for continuation of your registration within 30 days.", and
  *
• "You are hereby notified that your voter registration will be suspended, according to state law, for failure to vote within the previous 4-year period, unless you apply for continuation of your registration within 300 days."

are ALL in EXACTLY the same FORM?

Yes, I agree that terminating a voter's registration after giving them no more than 30 days notice was what the Wisconsin legislature probably INTENDED to do. Unfortunately that is NOT what the actual words of the actual legislation as actually passed DID do. If the Wisconsin legislature had actually intended to make it MANDATORY for the Elections Commission to specify exactly 30 days, then if should have passed legislation that said

... shall mail a notice to the elector -in substantially the following form- as follows:

NOTICE OF SUSPENSION OF REGISTRATION
​

You are hereby notified that your voter registration will be suspended, according to state law, for failure to vote within the previous 4-year period, unless you apply for continuation of your registration within 30 days. You may continue your registration by signing the statement below and returning it to the office of the municipal clerk .... (mailing address and telephone number of office of municipal clerk or board of election commissioners) by mail or in person. ...
​

and, unfortunately (for some) the actual words of the actual law that is actually passed take precedence over the intended words of the intended law that was not passed.

Can you see the difference between

• It shall NOT be allowed to spit on the sidewalks on Sundays between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.;
  *
  and
  *
• It shall be allowed to spit on the sidewalks on Sundays between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.?

Would the second make it illegal to spit on the sidewalks on Sundays between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. EVEN IF that was what the legislature had INTENDED to do?

Would either of them make it illegal to spit on the sidewalks at time other than Sundays between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.?
​

All irrelevant in this case as the examination and mailing has already occurred. But irrelevancy is where you always dive into to avoid the relevant.

 

[smallvoice]

Exactly, but the right will never run out of excuses to STOP people voting...

Exactly, but the left will never run out of ways to allow illegals to vote, and will use any means to prevent the authorities from enforcing the law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Nalu]

Exactly, but the left will never run out of ways to allow illegals to vote, and will use any means to prevent the authorities from enforcing the law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Whoa. You took a sharp turn into Psycho Town. Not even the evil law firm who is spending its time and money taking away Americans' right to vote ever said anything about "illegals".

 

[smallvoice]

Whoa. You took a sharp turn into Psycho Town. Not even the evil law firm who is spending its time and money taking away Americans' right to vote ever said anything about "illegals".

Yes, you ignore the base cause of the voting issue.

 

[TomFitz]

I suggest WI voters make sure they're eligible. They have time to do it.

yes, but no one is going to tell them that thier names have been stricken from the rolls. Most of them will get a big surprise on Election Day.

That’s the purpose of voter caging operations.

 

[Mycroft]

yes, but no one is going to tell them that thier names have been stricken from the rolls. Most of them will get a big surprise on Election Day.

That’s the purpose of voter caging operations.

All they have to do is check. They have a lot of time to do so.

If they don't, then it's on them.

 

[Nalu]

Yes, you ignore the base cause of the voting issue.

Which is what? "Illegals"? I thought trolling wasn't allowed here.

 

[Nalu]

yes, but no one is going to tell them that thier names have been stricken from the rolls. Most of them will get a big surprise on Election Day.

That’s the purpose of voter caging operations.

They know. They're acting dumb. Well, some of them are acting dumb. The others just are dumb.

 

[Nalu]

All they have to do is check. They have a lot of time to do so.

If they don't, then it's on them.

Most people don't randomly and proactively check their voter registration record. That's the point. The lawsuit is about preventing people from voting.

 

[GDViking]

All they have to do is check. They have a lot of time to do so.

If they don't, then it's on them.

I live in Wisconsin and the only reason I have become aware of this is this thread.

 

[ludin]

As long as they remain residents...does moving make you ineligible to vote?

You might move into a different district. meaning that your rep is not the same rep as you would vote for before.
it actually is a state law that if you move you have 30 days to re-register yourself to vote.

the 2 year grace period is in fact running a foul of a state law. as the grace period was a commission vote not a legislature vote.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

All irrelevant in this case as the examination and mailing has already occurred. But irrelevancy is where you always dive into to avoid the relevant.

Indeed it has, and the law suit is about WHEN (after the expiry of the 30 days) the "suspension" commences.

The law suit claims that it kicks in IMMEDIATELY, and the Electoral Commission says that it has the authority to set whatever time for it to kick in that its administrative processes feels like setting.

That means that the actual wording of the actual law that was already passed is not quite as "irrelevant" as you would like to think it should be.

You might not have noticed it, but there is no provision to notify a voter that their "confirmation" has been accepted and that they are NOT on the "suspended voter" list.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

You might move into a different district. meaning that your rep is not the same rep as you would vote for before.

True.

it actually is a state law that if you move you have 30 days to re-register yourself to vote.

Possibly you could point out the exact place in the Wisconsin State laws (Specifically CHAPTER 6 - THE ELECTORS) you found that, because I sure couldn't.

the 2 year grace period is in fact running a foul of a state law.

That is what the litigation is all about, isn't it?

as the grace period was a commission vote not a legislature vote.

In fact, the legislation is completely silent on any "grace period" and does not MANDATE any SPECIFIC time for a voter to reply. The legislation only provides for a mandatory FORM OF NOTICE and does not provide for mandatory CONTENT of that form.

 

[ludin]

True.

Yep it is.

Possibly you could point out the exact place in the Wisconsin State laws (Specifically CHAPTER 6 - THE ELECTORS) you found that, because I sure couldn't.

did you not read your own friggen article again? probably not you normally don't which is why you end up in these situations. it is in the article.

That is what the litigation is all about, isn't it?

I never said anything about only that it appears the election committee is running a foul of a state law.

In fact, the legislation is completely silent on any "grace period" and does not MANDATE any SPECIFIC time for a voter to reply. The legislation only provides for a mandatory FORM OF NOTICE and does not provide for mandatory CONTENT of that form.

splitting hairs.

 

[Mycroft]

Most people don't randomly and proactively check their voter registration record. That's the point. The lawsuit is about preventing people from voting.

People should check their status. If they don't, too bad for them.