Democrats decry culling of inactive registrations
Don't see a problem with it...as long as they are able to cast a
provisional ballot and aren't denied the right to vote, its' fine with
me.signed, Freedom-loving Liberal
Well the numbers would suggest that a disproportionate number of unaffiliated or
democratic voters were removed. If 9% of the voter pop is Democrat and 12% of
the holds were Democrat then that's a clear skewing of the percentages,
over 30% proportionally. Additionally 66% of the holds were unaffiliated while
they only make up 42% of the voter population. Lastly, the party behind the
questionable decision held 22% of the holds while they actually represent 47% of
the population as a whole. Clearly the numbers would suggest that it would have
a larger effect on non Republican voters either unaffiliated or Democrat. I
would think that given the numbers that in order to avoid the suggestion that
they were doing something of questionable ethics they would wait until after the
general election to remove the names. Since they didn't any logical
observer would have to assume that the act was deliberate as they were willing
to pay the price of appearing unethical to achieve the end. It's math and
pretty simple math too.
I find it amusing to say voters, who haven't bothered to vote for years,
will be "disenfranchised." What makes the local Democrats think
they'll be any more motivated to vote this year? All they had to do, to be
active, is vote in local elections and they didn't even do that. I
haven't missed a vote since 1976, local or otherwise.
This might sound reasonable but I can see some problems with this. How deep did
they research archives about these voters? Did they cross check the names with
the department of Vital Statics or police records to verify this action? Names
should not be removed just because they haven't voted. What is
more concerning is names being used to vote that are over 125 years old, well
beyond the life span of a human. To be on voter list the voter must be a citizen
in residence and if citizenship or residency cannot be established then removal
should not even be questioned.Maybe we should have a law passed that
puts county clerks in the loop of civil actions and vital statistics. But a
responsible department would obtain that information without having to be told
to. Deportations and criminal incarceration list should also be maintained
without question.I think with a little more effort this voter list
could be reduced by a few hundred thousand names statewide. After all, the
reason for this is to reduce voter fraud and doubt in elections.
Dabakis just likes to play victim.As Economist said, as long as they
are still able to vote, what's the problem?
Works for me. People who are not interested in being part of the election
process can better spend their time complaining about the candidates other
people help elect.
The timing is way off, this is not the time to purge the list less than thirty
days away from a major election. After the election is better timing and
hopefully there will be a good turn out of voters and less names to remove.
Doing it At this time it smells like dirty politics.
You don't think a policy like that has any effect on keeping the status
quo? Good luck. You can only vote them out if you were there to vote
for them last time. Nice plan.
When I was a poll worker in my own precinct I noticed numerous voters still on
the list who were either deceased or had moved. Some of those who had moved
came back to that precinct to vote because they had not bothered to register in
their new area. Our son had moved to another state and voted there, but his name
was still on our list. We would make a note on the record for those that we
knew were deceased or moved, but the next election their names would still be
there. The proceedure was to wait until the person had missed a certain number
of elections before removing their names. People have every
opportunity to vote if they want to. Nobody is disenfranchised by this
proceedure. People disenfranchise themselves by being too lazy to vote, which
is all they have to do to keep their registration current. If the percentage of
democrats taken off the voter lists is greater than the percentage of registered
democrats it simply means that a larger percentage have died, moved, or not
bothered to vote. Not surprising in this very republican state to find that
they didn't bother to vote.
Re: sergio Phoenix, AZ"Doing it At this time it smells like dirty
politics."I assume there is a more or less equal mix of
Republicans and Democrats on this list who, for what ever reason, have shown
zero interest in the election process. People need to take personal
responsibility for their lives. If people want to vote for heaven's sake
get out of bed, turn off the TV, and get registered. How hard can that possibly
Finally. This has been a growing problem for years. I have heard that upwards of
40% of the names on the voter rolls in Utah are either dead or have moved.
Because this action does not stop someone from being able to vote, but does
clean up the voter rolls to reduce the possibility of voter fraud, it makes
complete sense, regardless of when it was done.If the names being
removed were precluded from voting bacause of the action, that would be a
different story. Since that is not the case, any whining about it is silly.
"Democrats have also blasted Republican election chiefs this year for
undertaking efforts around the country to find noncitizens who are illegally
registered to vote."Why would any party be against illegal voter
I am pleased to see steps are finally being taken to legitimize voting records.
Hope it continues. Any time unlawful or seemingly unlawful acts are stopped is
the right time.
"12 percent of the voters whose status was put on hold were Democrats, 22
percent were Republicans, and 66 were unaffiliated"With repubs
representing almost TWICE the number of dems on the purge list, how can the
whiny liberals claim this is aimed at disproportionately disenfranchising dems?