Limited Impact for High Court Voter Decision? | God's World News

Limited Impact for High Court Voter Decision?

06/14/2018
  • AP18163043546464
    (AP Photo: People rally outside of the Supreme Court in opposition to Ohio’s voter roll purges in Washington.)

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling this week allows states to take a tougher approach to maintaining voter rolls. The question now is, will they?

Ohio lawmakers say they will resume removing inactive voters after their process was affirmed in the 5-4 ruling. Ohio takes an especially aggressive approach. But Oklahoma, Georgia, Montana, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia have laws similar to Ohio’s.

“Our law has been on the books. It hasn’t changed, and it isn’t changing,” says Oklahoma Election Board spokesman Bryan Dean.

The debate is over when a state begins notifying and finally removes people from the rolls after a period of non-voting. In states like Oklahoma, that process begins after voters miss two or more federal elections.

But in Ohio, the process starts if voters don’t vote for a two-year period that includes just one federal election. They’re removed from the rolls if they fail to vote over the following four years or do not return an address-confirmation card.

Critics say the law means to purge people from the rolls—mainly minorities and the poor, who tend to vote Democratic.

Supporters say voters are given plenty of chances to keep their active status. They say the rules follow federal law that requires states to maintain accurate voter rolls.

Democrats and voting rights groups worry that other states will be emboldened by the ruling—and try harder to kick voters off the rolls.

Do you think voters who don’t vote regularly should be taken off the rolls?

(AP Photo: People rally outside of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington in opposition to Ohio’s voter roll law.)