Why is this even an issue, much less going to SCOTUS? The Supreme Court is hearing a case from Ohio, a state very strict in purging v**ers. They've (Ohio) made the law that if you...

dljen Loc: Central PA

The Supreme Court is hearing a case from Ohio, a state very strict in purging v**ers. They've (Ohio) made the law that if you don't v**e in two consecutive e******ns, you'll be dropped from the v**er rolls. I wonder if the v**ers of this state even know this is a law?

http://www.npr.org/2018/01/10/576599104/supreme-court-hears-challenge-to-ohio-s-use-it-or-lose-it-v**er-system

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Seems there are more States that agree with Ohio than are opposed.

dljen wrote:

The Supreme Court is hearing a case from Ohio, a state very strict in purging v**ers. They've (Ohio) made the law that if you don't v**e in two consecutive e******ns, you'll be dropped from the v**er rolls. I wonder if the v**ers of this state even know this is a law?

http://www.npr.org/2018/01/10/576599104/supreme-court-hears-challenge-to-ohio-s-use-it-or-lose-it-v**er-system

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Is that two P**********l e******ns or just two e******ns?

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

2 e******ns

SteveR wrote:

Is that two P**********l e******ns or just two e******ns?

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Screamin Scott wrote:

2 e******ns

That's not quite the case, Scott. All states purge their v***r r**********n rolls of those who have died and moved. In 1994 Ohio adopted a supplemental law. If an individual did not v**e in two consecutive years, he/she would be sent a notice. It he/she responded they would remain on the rolls. If not, he or she would be removed from the rolls after four additional years. Ohio is asserting that it is not arbitrarily removing individuals from the rolls, because, despite their failure to v**e, it has allowed them to respond to notices and remain on the rolls.

dljen Loc: Central PA

In my opinion, they're dead wrong but some ppl feel that less ppl v****g is more fair. I hope Ohio loses.

lARRY1 Loc: southern nc

dljen wrote:

In my opinion, they're dead wrong but some ppl feel that less ppl v****g is more fair. I hope Ohio loses.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

If they failed to v**e in two years, what makes you so sure they would v**e again?. Plus they can always go & update their registration. Oh wait, that's too much trouble, isn't it?

dljen wrote:

In my opinion, they're dead wrong but some ppl feel that less ppl v****g is more fair. I hope Ohio loses.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

What's wrong with having to respond to a notice that you want to stay on the v***r r**********n rolls?

Black Bart Loc: Indiana

Screamin Scott wrote:

If they failed to v**e in two years, what makes you so sure they would v**e again?. Plus they can always go & update their registration. Oh wait, that's too much trouble, isn't it?

Yes it would be for D.S.D.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

It should be noted that this law was passed in Ohio in 1994. The Ohio House was controlled by Democrats while the Senate was controlled by Republicans and the Governor was Republican. This supplemental law could NOT have been passed without bi-partisan support. Bottom line....it's not a Republican Bill.

So....don't dump this on the Republicans.

dljen Loc: Central PA

I am "dumping" it on whose responsible. You want to encourage ppl to v**e not bounce them from the v****g rolls. Ohio has strange laws, you cannot get an a******n if your child is mentally disabled. Kasich tries to act like he's normal but deep down, he's a no-good greedy R.

lARRY1 Loc: southern nc

dljen wrote:

I am "dumping" it on whose responsible. You want to encourage ppl to v**e not bounce them from the v****g rolls. Ohio has strange laws, you cannot get an a******n if your child is mentally disabled. Kasich tries to act like he's normal but deep down, he's a no-good greedy R.