SCOTUS has put millions of voters at risk.

[diz]

At issue are not "suspected illegal voters". We are talking about people who have self-identified as non-citizens.

Furthermore, VA is only removing them from the voter rolls until they prove that they are NOT non-citizens. If they are actually citizens who stupidly marked the wrong box, they can correct their mistake and they'll be able to vote.

I'm guessing there probably aren't "millions" of them in Virginia either. Even though the border was pretty open under our last Border Czar.

 

[NWRatCon]

If you have such low regard for democracy, then I am unsurprised.

Kinda like his namesake.

 

[Felis Leo]

The SCOTUS, which seems presently to be controlled by Trump and the GOP, decided that the GOP in Virginia could purge "suspected" illegal voters from the voting rolls. Lower courts had said that the state had no definitive proof that these voters were not eligible to vote, but the SCOTUS GOP 6 cons decided that suspected was enough. What could this mean, the first and most troubling outcome of this decision is that GOP controlled states could use this decision to get rid of voters off of voting rolls, especially those who might vote for Dems, by saying that they were suspected of being ineligible to vote as now according to SCOTUS proof is not needed. Of course, the second outcome for this election is that it is too late for anyone purged to prove they are eligible. Score another win for the fascists in both the GOP and SCOTUS.

And this is why if Kamala Harris takes the White House, and the Democrats the Senate, the first order of business should be (1) ending the filibuster followed by (2) expanding the Supreme Court by four to eight justices.

 

[NWRatCon]

From my understanding of this lawsuit, first VA purged the voting rolls past the deadline they had. Federal government objected. Went to SCOTUS and they sided with VA. What they are doing is matching DMV registrations as non-citizens with the voter rolls to make sure that the non-citizens list of the DMV doesn't match with the voter registrations. So you appear on the non-citizen list at the DMV, you should not appear on the voting roll. The logic makes sense, but the problem is that they passed the deadline to cull the voters list.

However, I don't see the evidence that "millions of voters" are at stake, unless there's "millions" of non-citizens at stake. If that was the case, then it probably means Trump is right and there is massive voter fraud. Millions? I doubt it. Thousands? Maybe.

Finally, I've not yet seen any evidence that the usual appeals process is not being used. So your name gets culled, you try to vote, vote is rejected. You can still contest the ballot.

Respectfully, my friend, you have it backwards.

There is a fundamental right - Due Process (notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard) - that is being deliberately violated by the Governor's facially unlawful action. One of the principles is that one's right (in this case, to vote) is not to be burdened without justification. Moreover, by denying the stay, the Supreme Court itself is further burdening that right, without justification. It is requiring otherwise legitimate voters to take additional steps - without notice, mind you, or meaningful opportunity to be heard (hence the 90 day moratorium in federal law) - to prove their eligibility. That is backwards. It must be the State's obligation to justify that action, not the citizen's.

 

[NWRatCon]

Oh, and I forgot to address the assertion of the thread title that "SCOTUS has put millions of voters at risk". It has, and here's why: SCOTUS has once again interceded to disenfranchize legitimate voters at the last minute, on an interlocutory basis. As there is no legitimate basis for doing so (hence, no opinion), any other State actor can take similar action for any number of excuses in direct contradiction to explicit federal law. This is especially fraught when, as here, there is no significant evidence to justify the State's action in the first place, and, to the contrary, there are actual legitimate voters who have been harmed. In this instance, the babies are identified, and no bathwater has been.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

Oh, and I forgot to address the assertion of the thread title that "SCOTUS has put millions of voters at risk". It has, and here's why: SCOTUS has once again interceded to disenfranchize legitimate voters at the last minute, on an interlocutory basis. As there is no legitimate basis for doing so (hence, no opinion), any other State actor can take similar action for any number of excuses in direct contradiction to explicit federal law. This is especially fraught when, as here, there is no significant evidence to justify the State's action in the first place, and, to the contrary, there are actual legitimate voters who have been harmed. In this instance, the babies are identified, and no bathwater has been.

So, to clarify, what I meant by millions instead of thousands (on this particular issue): Virginia is comparing the DMV registration and the indication of whether a person identified themselves as a citizen or non-citizen vs. voter registration. If you've registered with DMV and checked non-citizen and your name appears on the voter roll, you would be purged. To me, this is thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands nationwide, but I don't think millions. Basically, on this specific issue I feel the OP headline is exaggerating. Now if you're doing what you seem to be doing and adding that to the sum total of the potential voter pool, the series of decisions it has made in total would seem to be in the millions. So if you're looking macro, you're right, if you're looking micro, I would contest that I am right. So I just wanted to delineate what I was objecting to (The OP headline) vs. what I think you were confirming (All of the decisions taken at once and added together).

Otherwise, thank you for a great explanation. I had thought due process would have been the contesting the ballot (since that would be the -process-), not the state guaranteeing the ballot to begin with, which is the other process being altered here (voting). Interesting way of looking at it, and I do agree. Usually, I think of due process as "the rights during court proceedings," but never thought of it as "any legal process." So I will concede that point to you

 

[PoliSciPulse]

And this is why if Kamala Harris takes the White House, and the Democrats the Senate, the first order of business should be (1) ending the filibuster followed by (2) expanding the Supreme Court by four to eight justices.

Ending the filibuster by Democrats is not the problem. The thing is, regardless of whether they will be allied with Trump or not, Republicans will eventually take the Senate back as part of the natural cycle of American politics. Could be in 2026, could be even later. But if the Democrats nuke the filibuster absolutely, they open the door for Republicans to do the same -- and depending on where the Republican Party is at that time, this could do serious damage to society. I would much rather the Democrats not touch the filibuster for that reason. If I could be somehow assured that the Republicans (or whatever party they become years from now) would not touch the filibuster when they took control of the Senate in whatever year that will be, then I'd agree with you.

I feel much the same about expanding the Court for much the same reason. Democrats expand it to get a majority, then Republicans expand it, etc. -- you could eventually reach a point of absurdity where there is no one left who is qualified to be on the court. Plus, once Trump iis too old to be an effective political figure, Republicans (including Justices) will have little reason to keep attaching their name to Trump. Amy Comey Barrett is the first judge of Trump's to show individual thought as opposed to just rubber stamping the former President. If I could be assured that we wouldn't just keep adding justices to get an advantage over the party every time the chamber switched hands, I'd also agree with you.

In sum, I don't really think these solutions will solve what needs to be solved. If we end the filibuster or expand the Supreme Court Justices, it's hard to say that that will be good in the long haul -- decades from now. In the short-term, yes it does solve many of issues. But for the reasons I've outlined, it's not a long-term fix. The only way we fix this long term is if the Republicans reinvent themselves and stay away from the issues that cause harm to society. And that will only happen (if it does) once Trump is gone from the political scene.

 

[Felis Leo]

Ending the filibuster by Democrats is not the problem. The thing is, regardless of whether they will be allied with Trump or not, Republicans will eventually take the Senate back as part of the natural cycle of American politics. Could be in 2026, could be even later. But if the Democrats nuke the filibuster absolutely, they open the door for Republicans to do the same -- and depending on where the Republican Party is at that time, this could do serious damage to society. I would much rather the Democrats not touch the filibuster for that reason. If I could be somehow assured that the Republicans (or whatever party they become years from now) would not touch the filibuster when they took control of the Senate in whatever year that will be, then I'd agree with you.

The Republicans have nuked the filibuster. Multiple times. It is dead letter to them, and to my knowledge, it has never been used for anything good. Certainly not in our lifetimes.

It is not even in the Constitution. It was simply a Senatorial rule developed mainly to benefit slave owners from the 1830s onward.

I feel much the same about expanding the Court for much the same reason. Democrats expand it to get a majority, then Republicans expand it, etc. -- you could eventually reach a point of absurdity where there is no one left who is qualified to be on the court.

That is true. That is why if the Democrats had the trifecta of taking the Presidency, the House and the Senate, they should move to admit Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. as states, practically ensuring the Democrats four Senate seats, since Republicans politicians are about as popular as metastatic breast cancer in both those regions.

After that, Democrats can start passing Voting Rights laws to make our country progressively more representative just as our Founding Fathers intended.

Plus, once Trump iis too old to be an effective political figure, Republicans (including Justices) will have little reason to keep attaching their name to Trump. Amy Comey Barrett is the first judge of Trump's to show individual thought as opposed to just rubber stamping the former President.

What on Earth are you talking about, PoliSciPlus? What exactly are you basing this on? The Federalist-society approved justices are absolutely rubber stamps for Republican's desire to consolidate corporate and social conservative power. Any deviations are merely exceptions that prove the rule.

If I could be assured that we wouldn't just keep adding justices to get an advantage over the party every time the chamber switched hands, I'd also agree with you.

It isn't a matter of advantage purely for advantage's sake. My system makes the country literally more democratic and representative and allow our government to function. Under my rubric, Republicans can re-take both the upper and lower chambers of Congress and the Presidency...but they actually have to be genuinely more popular and win the hearts and minds of the American people, and not just rely on gerrymandering or that multiple big empty states are controlled by their party and thus are apportioned more Senators.

In sum, I don't really think these solutions will solve what needs to be solved. If we end the filibuster or expand the Supreme Court Justices, it's hard to say that that will be good in the long haul -- decades from now.

It will make our country more democratic and make it so that the American people's voices and choices have greater impact. Now, perhaps the American people will choose folly and make bad choices. Such is life.

In the short-term, yes it does solve many of issues. But for the reasons I've outlined, it's not a long-term fix. The only way we fix this long term is if the Republicans reinvent themselves and stay away from the issues that cause harm to society. And that will only happen (if it does) once Trump is gone from the political scene.

What incentive do Republicans have to do this? They've found success. Xenophobic nationalism, anti-empiricist theocratic social conservatism, and fascist demagoguery are a winning combination. An absolute s'more of evil, to be certain, but a winning one. I have no reason to believe that Republicans will pick up the principles they so quickly tossed in the dirt behind them while following Trump and dust them off.

 

[NWRatCon]

So, to clarify, what I meant by millions instead of thousands (on this particular issue)

We understand each other on this issue.

Virginia is comparing the DMV registration and the indication of whether a person identified themselves as a citizen or non-citizen vs. voter registration.

But, why? And, more importantly, why now? If it is a legitimate issue, it would have been an issue a year ago, and 3 months from now. So, there has to be another reason why it has suddenly become an issue. I think the obvious reason is to create a controversy and suppress the vote. It was done, now, to have the most impact.

And, there has to be a better justification. Another aspect of burdening fundamental rights is that the State has to use the least restrictive option. In this case, that clearly is not what is happening, rather the opposite. Instead, it could, for example, have sent letters to all of those "questionable" registrants, most of whom didn't say that they were NOT citizens, but merely missed the check box. Some, too, became citizens subsequent to their registration, according to the pleadings.

 

[NWRatCon]

The Republicans have nuked the filibuster. Multiple times. It is dead letter to them, and to my knowledge, it has never been used for anything good. Certainly not in our lifetimes.

That is so incredibly true. Dems were baited into the first crack, and then Republicans pushed it wide open to violate even fundamental constitutional principles, because, of course, they have none.

It is not even in the Constitution. It was simply a Senatorial rule developed mainly to benefit slave owners from the 1830s onward.

Odd that, huh?

That is why if the Democrats had the trifecta of taking the Presidency, the House and the Senate, they should move to admit Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. as states, practically ensuring the Democrats four Senate seats, since Republicans politicians are about as popular as metastatic breast cancer in both those regions.

Genuinely laughed at that.

After that, Democrats can start passing Voting Rights laws to make our country progressively more representative just as our Founding Fathers intended.

I wish more people would realized that.

What on Earth are you talking about, PoliSciPlus? What exactly are you basing this on? The Federalist-society approved justices are absolutely rubber stamps for Republican's desire to consolidate corporate and social conservative power. Any deviations are merely exceptions that prove the rule.

Agree. The effort to corrupt the judiciary has been an ongoing project since Warren "went of the farm" and showed a conscience and principle.

It isn't a matter of advantage purely for advantage's sake. My system makes the country literally more democratic and representative and allow our government to function. Under my rubric, Republicans can re-take both the upper and lower chambers of Congress and the Presidency...but they actually have to be genuinely more popular and win the hearts and minds of the American people, and not just rely on gerrymandering or that multiple big empty states are controlled by their party and thus are apportioned more Senators.

There are solutions for that, too. Unfortunately, they are firmly embedded and will require a Constitutional Amendment to correct. The EC, however, can be rendered inert with less effort.

It will make our country more democratic and make it so that the American people's voices and choices have greater impact. Now, perhaps the American people will choose folly and make bad choices. Such is life.

What incentive do Republicans have to do this? They've found success. Xenophobic nationalism, anti-empiricist theocratic social conservatism, and fascist demagoguery are a winning combination. An absolute s'more of evil, to be certain, but a winning one. I have no reason to believe that Republicans will pick up the principles they so quickly tossed in the dirt behind them while following Trump and dust them off.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

The Republicans have nuked the filibuster. Multiple times. It is dead letter to them, and to my knowledge, it has never been used for anything good. Certainly not in our lifetimes.

Democrats have used the filibuster multiple times to kill Republican legislation related to abortion, etc. In fact, most of the (harmful) legislation the Republicans introduced during the Obama era required cloture that was never reached. Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act actually won in votes, but lost because they could not reach the 60-vote threshold. If you'd like I can start posting results from all the bills the Democrats filibustered during the Obama era.

As far as nuking the filibuster, it was first done by Harry Reid (D-NV) for judicial appointments. The Republicans played the long game and nuked it for the Supreme Court justices we have today. Again, I am not in favor of an entire filibuster repeal.

It is not even in the Constitution. It was simply a Senatorial rule developed mainly to benefit slave owners from the 1830s onward.

IT is in the Senate's internal rules, say what you will about whether chambers should have their own internal rules or not.
------
Which is why that will never happen. Also, you've created a one-party (almost) monopoly in your system. Not a good thing in either direction.

After that, Democrats can start passing Voting Rights laws to make our country progressively more representative just as our Founding Fathers intended.

…And the Republicans can just take undo that when they take power. A short-term victory at the expensive of a long-term goal.
-----
Amy Comey Barrett has voted multiple times against Trump and has shown signs that she knows where the line is. Granted, that still takes it to 5-4 if Barrett proves to be the swing justice. I disagree that they are -entirely- rubber stamps, but are in -most- cases. There have also been cases in history where the most supposedly conservative justices wind up being more liberal. We don't have enough of a body of work in front of them
-----
Your system will only work on short-term gains. It will not set things up for long-term success. That might be acceptable to you, but I fear that when and if modern-day Republicans were to take the chambers back, it would get real dark and ugly very quickly.

It will make our country more democratic and make it so that the American people's voices and choices have greater impact. Now, perhaps the American people will choose folly and make bad choices. Such is life.

So you'd gamble that Americans would reject extremism in favor of moderation? I'm not sure I want to make that gamble all the time. That gamble got us Trump v. 1.0. As Obama said, "The long arc of history bends towards justice," but I don't know, I just don't want to make that arc longer than it needs to be.

What incentive do Republicans have to do this? They've found success. Xenophobic nationalism, anti-empiricist theocratic social conservatism, and fascist demagoguery are a winning combination. An absolute s'more of evil, to be certain, but a winning one. I have no reason to believe that Republicans will pick up the principles they so quickly tossed in the dirt behind them while following Trump and dust them off.

The Republicans do not have the incentive to do this right now. But hand them a few crushing defeats (which is where they are eventually going to wind up if they keep going like this) and they'll have no choice to reinvent themselves or get lost to history. There are also what I would call "fair-weather" Trump supporters. Those are your Mitch McConnells. They will give Trump lip service while privately hating him and what he stands for behind closed doors. I also think your perception of Congressional Republicans is too extreme as there are many more who simply don't make waves one way or the other. Again, fair-weather.

(Deleted a few of your quotes because it was getting near the character limit, which doesn't respect anyone's time)

 

[daeler]

The SCOTUS, which seems presently to be controlled by Trump and the GOP, decided that the GOP in Virginia could purge "suspected" illegal voters from the voting rolls. Lower courts had said that the state had no definitive proof that these voters were not eligible to vote, but the SCOTUS GOP 6 cons decided that suspected was enough. What could this mean, the first and most troubling outcome of this decision is that GOP controlled states could use this decision to get rid of voters off of voting rolls, especially those who might vote for Dems, by saying that they were suspected of being ineligible to vote as now according to SCOTUS proof is not needed. Of course, the second outcome for this election is that it is too late for anyone purged to prove they are eligible. Score another win for the fascists in both the GOP and SCOTUS.

Didn't those 1600 self identify as non-citizens?

 

[cpwill]

Right, and the state has declared them ineligible. Are we to assume the state is incompetent and as a normal matter of course reinstates a voter the state has officially declared ineligible, just because they filled out another form? I don't think that's a fair assumption, so we'd expect their new registration to be rejected, the provisional ballot tossed, because the state has officially declared that person ineligible. And if that official determination was in error, maybe it might take more than a DAY to fix? That's my guess....

As I understand it, they declared themselves to be ineligible. This is a removal of self-identified non-citizens.

And yes, if any of them turned out to be citizens, they can still view, as can anyone eise who is a citizen but isn't registered.

 

[cpwill]

Yo CP! Hey man, I have a serious question for you, (since you have always been one of the smartest people in the room.) I am totally embarrassed that I have to even ask as I should know already. (But, I have long said, I'm not the smartest guy on 2 legs.) Of course, you know me, it takes me a thousand words to explain why I am even asking to begin with so please bear with me.

I'm sure there's a thread about it somewhere but since I got your attention....

hey man! Pride and Ego Up, eh? You do know how to ask a question.

It's about Trump and Johnson's "little secret." There's a lot of "assuming" out there on what that's all about. My gut tells me, if a "little secret" actually exists, (since Trump is infamous for his lying), it's something nefarious because, well, you know. (It's Trump and Johnson so we can reasonably assume it is.) Now, a little common sense might assume that if it was something that would help Trump WIN the election, there would be no secret about it at all. It would be blasted on Truth Social, X, CNN, FOX and every other news outlet out there. So, the same common sense leads me to believe that it must only be a "secret" because it is being held back only in the event Trump LOSES the election. A "Plan B" if you will.

I'll admit, I've heard references to this, but not dived in.

Now, we can all reasonably assume that there is no way that MAGA will accept a defeat. In fact, that's a given. We have been watching them lay the groundwork to muddle up the election already. Their soldiers are posted and ready for their marching orders. They are preparing, (and have been for 4 years now) for the loss every bit as much as they are hoping for a win. Their players are placed. (Of course, if Trump does win, all this MAGA implied pre-election "corruption" fear mongering will all go away as the election would then be considered by MAGA to have been a beautiful, bigly and righteous, fair election. (Yes, the same election they are girded up, locked and loaded, and prepared to deny, and fight for, if they lose. Same election. To them, it will only be legit if their guy wins. MAGA logic, no?)

I think that's correct. They look at Presidential elections the same way much of the Left looks at Supreme Court decisions - the process is legitimate or not based on whether or not my side wins. If my side doesn't win, well, it's illegitimate. Gotta be. To say any less is to betray the Tribe.

We can reasonably assume a truckload of BS cases will be filed, just like last time, only to be kicked to the curb, just like last time, because of things like justice and the laws of this land.

*And the Founders, Peace-and-Praises-Be-Upon-Them, who devised a system based on diffusing power across multiple branches and levels of government, so that each had a foundation for telling the other "No".

Periodically, folks who want to do away with the electoral college argue that we should generally nationalize our elections. I'm not sure they have thought through all the implications of what it would have meant, say, in 2020, if the President was the one responsible for running and then validating the election. The Presidency is already too dangerous as it is. :-/

 

[cpwill]

However, Der Fuhrer, and his army of lawyers, have had an ample amount of time to hone their skills on how to legally snarl up the courts. And they have successfully placed their MAGA operatives in our courts all the way up to the SCOTUS.

That I don't see. SCOTUS has told "No" on multiple occasions, including the people he appointed (he was upset about it - he thought they were supposed to be loyal to him, not their reading of the Constitution).

It is very possible that this will change in a second Trump administration, but, in the first, he largely allowed the Federalist Society to vet his judicial nominations. The result was a slate of judges who were loyal to a particular set of judicial philosophies (originalism and textualism, which overlap, but are not the same), which they have continued to apply on the bench. As you yourself noted - the first time Trump tried to challenge an election, it got thrown out of the courts. It is worth noting that it was his appointees in several cases who were doing the throwing.

I don't know if MAGA-Land has gotten any better at learning how to manipulate the court system. Trump tends to burn through lawyers (turns out, if you try to stiff them, they won't work for you - who knew?), and the Responsible Adults In The Room who knew how government worked were generally weeded out over the course of the first Administration, and are no longer willing to aid him (if ever they were willing to aid in that kind of an endeavor). Everyone can see what happened to Rudy Guliani (who has fallen far from being America's Mayor).

I have no doubt they have whole series of challenges planned - supposedly that has taken priority over a ground game, which tells you a thing or two about the psychosis of the man at the top - but I don't know how they intend to base them.

To the best of your knowledge, is there even a way that Trump, Johnson, the GOP house, the MAGA SCOTUS, fake electors can usurp the will of the voters and deny Harris her victory, should she win? If so, that might be their "little secret" no?"

Could they actually steal this election? Or, have fail-safes been put in place to present them from doing just that? Can those fail-safes be taken away?

That level of politics is way over my pay-grade. I thought you might know.

Are we safe? Or, is there a little secret that will allow Trump and MAGA overthrow the election?

Technically, any election can be stolen, especially if the military backs up the person doing the stealing.

I'm not an expert, and I'm not well-read here. I don't have any idea what the "little secret" is supposed to be. Acknowledging all that, however, I think it is unlikely. The ambiguity that Trump tried to leverage in 2020/2021 has been corrected. As discussed above, our system (wisely, I think) disperses control over the election across 50 states and many, many precincts; organizing a steal across all that would require the silent, willing, active support, of thousands of opposing party members.... which..... let us say, I think Trump is unlikely to get.

Emotions are stupid-high, and everyone is convinced the other side is going to try to cheat (which, in turns, justifies us cheating, see? Because we're really just canceling out their cheating, and, we gotta do it before they do, see?). I will not be surprised if there are incidents of closing polling stations down in areas likely to vote for one candidate or another, or more examples of someone trying to destroy ballots (as happened out west) or submit a bunch of faked documents (as happened in Pennsylvania), and that these will be held up by whichever side loses as "PROOF" that the vote was stolen.

It's part and parcel of our long decline from a Republic. We created generations without moral backbone, and eventually we will get to pay the price for it.






I just think there's still enough vestigial strength in the system to resist a Trump steal in 2024.

 

[JasperL]

As I understand it, they declared themselves to be ineligible. This is a removal of self-identified non-citizens.

Those who made a mistake, yes, or they didn't mark the box at all, and maybe there were non-citizens when they filled out the form, but became one, or there was human or machine error when inputting the forms. What matters is whether they ARE non-citizens or not. The law requires VA to make an individualized determination on that, so go beyond forms everyone knows will contain mistakes. The state said they matched a preliminary list against a list at DHS, but if they did do that, the federal list is error ridden because we know eligible citizens were in fact purged.

And yes, if any of them turned out to be citizens, they can still view [vote I assume], as can anyone eise who is a citizen but isn't registered.

So e.g. on Monday the state makes an official determination that you, cpwill who live at 123 Main, Roanoke, are a non-citizen and purge your voter registration. Then on Tuesday you show up and file another form and the state says, Okee dokee! You're good to go!! The system doesn't kick out your registration, that was officially purged just days before! So they are NOT like everyone else, because the state has officially determined they are INELIGIBLE to vote and purged their registration.

If that's the case, it's an easy fix, then the state didn't make any actual determination about your eligibility, and you shouldn't have been purged. And if that's the case, you can cite the method outlined in the law for reinstatement if you were purged in error if you want, but what's more likely is you, cpwill, will have to prove the purge was in error. In 90 days that's a fair burden, but maybe not in 1 day or 2 days, for all kinds of logistical reasons.

You mentioned SCOTUS above, and that we on the left are angry when they make decisions simply because the decision didn't go our way... Well, this is a good example (one of MANY) of why we've lost trust. The law is clear, and it prohibits the kind of actions VA took. So SCOTUS in its wisdom overrules the lower courts, guts this part of federal law, at the last possible minute, roughly a week before the election, on their shadow docket, so with no explanation. Gosh, it's a mystery why the public loses confidence....

 

[NWRatCon]

Didn't those 1600 self identify as non-citizens?

No

 

[NWRatCon]

Those who made a mistake, yes, or they didn't mark the box at all, and maybe there were non-citizens when they filled out the form, but became one, or there was human or machine error when inputting the forms. What matters is whether they ARE non-citizens or not. The law requires VA to make an individualized determination on that, so go beyond forms everyone knows will contain mistakes. The state said they matched a preliminary list against a list at DHS, but if they did do that, the federal list is error ridden because we know eligible citizens were in fact purged.


So e.g. on Monday the state makes an official determination that you, cpwill who live at 123 Main, Roanoke, are a non-citizen and purge your voter registration. Then on Tuesday you show up and file another form and the state says, Okee dokee! You're good to go!! The system doesn't kick out your registration, that was officially purged just days before! So they are NOT like everyone else, because the state has officially determined they are INELIGIBLE to vote and purged their registration.

If that's the case, it's an easy fix, then the state didn't make any actual determination about your eligibility, and you shouldn't have been purged. And if that's the case, you can cite the method outlined in the law for reinstatement if you were purged in error if you want, but what's more likely is you, cpwill, will have to prove the purge was in error. In 90 days that's a fair burden, but maybe not in 1 day or 2 days, for all kinds of logistical reasons.

You mentioned SCOTUS above, and that we on the left are angry when they make decisions simply because the decision didn't go our way... Well, this is a good example (one of MANY) of why we've lost trust. The law is clear, and it prohibits the kind of actions VA took. So SCOTUS in its wisdom overrules the lower courts, guts this part of federal law, at the last possible minute, roughly a week before the election, on their shadow docket, so with no explanation. Gosh, it's a mystery why the public loses confidence....

And, moreover, the burden should never be on you.

 

[JasperL]

As I understand it, they declared themselves to be ineligible. This is a removal of self-identified non-citizens.

And yes, if any of them turned out to be citizens, they can still view, as can anyone eise who is a citizen but isn't registered.

Just to add, a good example of why the NVRA prohibits purges within 90 days is Alabama. They identified a list of about 3200 voters they'd like to purge and most of them were citizens - i.e. the error rate was > 50%. They announced it 84 days before the election. Under old law (before SCOTUS gutted it) that's the end of the inquiry. It's disallowed, and why or how AL supposedly identified these people isn't relevant.

Now what happens? Say Alabama announces the purge a week before? Is that allowed? Who knows. The danger is it is really difficult to identify errors and fix them in a week, or a month, and then interested parties have to file lawsuits, gather evidence, have court hearings, etc. all in a compressed time frame that might or might not be deliberate on the part of purging states going forward. That shouldn't be the case, because federal law with a 90 day 'quiet' period nips those last minute purges in the bud, and for good reason.

 

[Athanasius68]

Great then the state should make individual determinations and they didn't do that. We KNOW their list had eligible voters on it.

They did.

Furthermore, if the reason the voters are being purged is they are non-citizens, that's not a new condition. All the state has to do is purge these voters outside the 90 day limit, as the law requires.

The law makes exemptions. It's not a blanket 90 days that unlawful registrants receive a free pass and the state can do nothing.

 

[Athanasius68]

Right, and the state has declared them ineligible.

No. The state has said the person has submitted two contradictory official forms and the person needs to clarify things.

Are we to assume the state is incompetent and as a normal matter of course reinstates a voter the state has officially declared ineligible, just because they filled out another form? I don't think that's a fair assumption, so we'd expect their new registration to be rejected, the provisional ballot tossed, because the state has officially declared that person ineligible. And if that official determination was in error, maybe it might take more than a DAY to fix? That's my guess....

Virginia has same day voter registration...

 

[Athanasius68]

But, why? And, more importantly, why now? If it is a legitimate issue, it would have been an issue a year ago, and 3 months from now. So, there has to be another reason why it has suddenly become an issue. I think the obvious reason is to create a controversy and suppress the vote. It was done, now, to have the most impact.

And, there has to be a better justification. Another aspect of burdening fundamental rights is that the State has to use the least restrictive option. In this case, that clearly is not what is happening, rather the opposite. Instead, it could, for example, have sent letters to all of those "questionable" registrants, most of whom didn't say that they were NOT citizens, but merely missed the check box. Some, too, became citizens subsequent to their registration, according to the pleadings.

It's an issue NOW because the Biden/Harris has chosen NOW to side with non-citizens erroneously on the election rolls, over the rights of USA citizens who are on the election rolls and who reside in Virginia.

The law doesn't just kick around election day; it's ongoing.
The person a year ago who indicated on official state DMV paperwork that he was not a citizen has that paperwork sent to the election board, which checks and, if on the the rolls, is removed. Notifications to the person are the same.
It's the same, individualized system.

 

[Athanasius68]

Just to add, a good example of why the NVRA prohibits purges within 90 days is Alabama. They identified a list of about 3200 voters they'd like to purge and most of them were citizens - i.e. the error rate was > 50%. They announced it 84 days before the election. Under old law (before SCOTUS gutted it) that's the end of the inquiry. It's disallowed, and why or how AL supposedly identified these people isn't relevant.

The court in Alabama overturned that system.
But also said the state could continue to remove people on an individual basis.

This idea that states cannot remove people from the rolls less than 90 before an election is simply not true.

It might even be called 'misinformation.'

Now what happens? Say Alabama announces the purge a week before? Is that allowed? Who knows. The danger is it is really difficult to identify errors and fix them in a week, or a month, and then interested parties have to file lawsuits, gather evidence, have court hearings, etc. all in a compressed time frame that might or might not be deliberate on the part of purging states going forward. That shouldn't be the case, because federal law with a 90 day 'quiet' period nips those last minute purges in the bud, and for good reason.

 

[Athanasius68]

And, moreover, the burden should never be on you.

The burden is always on you when you register to vote.
The state isn't required to find the documents to prove you are eligible to vote. You have to present it upon registering.

 

[Athanasius68]

Didn't those 1600 self identify as non-citizens?

Yes