The state of Ohio previously acquired the right to purge voters who demonstrated political inactivity for over a six-year period. Although the state defended their actions by stating they only intended to keep voter lists “accurate and up to date,” many voter-rights groups expectedly challenged the controversial decision. These groups extended to demonstrate political activism by seeking an emergency motion; however, a federal judge overturned such grant in stating that the action of purging citizens who fail to vote in three federal elections or fail to take other similar voting-related actions does not demonstrate illegality.
Upon further observing actions taken by the Ohio state government, the A. Philip Randolph Institute recently challenged the specific confirmation notices that were actually sent to voters regarding the issue. These notices, according to the Institute, demonstrated a severe lack of clarity and did not rightly inform voters of consequences at stake. Bringing this concern back to the court, it was ruled this Wednesday that the confirmation notices indeed “did not adequately advise registrants of the consequences of failure to respond, as the NVRA (National Voting Rights Act) requires.” The court therefor concluded that the state of Ohio may no longer, at the moment, purge voters due to a lack of political participation. Ohio continues to assert that their primary intention remained making it “easy to vote and hard to cheat.” In addition, other politically conservative states claim to follow suit in this action of purging inactive voters if Ohio manages to regain its previous victory.
Questions to consider:
- Do you believe purging inactive voters is unconstitutional?
- How might the action of purging inactive voters impact minority groups? In what ways might it silence their voice?
- Generally characterized as a key swing state, how would purging previously inactive voters affect the commonly marginal results of Ohio’s elections?
- As other conservative states begin considering following Ohio’s actions, how might the country’s overall voter turnout be affected? (Possibly consider whether it will prompt previously inactive voters to finally vote, or rather create an ineffective outcome)
Ohio’s past policy of purging people from the voting registrations is unconstitutional, stripping people of their rights granted under the First Amendment. This especially affects minorities being that minorities have a lower voter turnout since they are not typically involved in politics. However, this inactivity does not justify the spike in purging rates during recent years. Especially with the increasingly polarization of the political climate, minorities may be more inclined to start voting as it becomes more relevant to their lives, and by preventing them from doing so, purging excludes a powerful and key force that could drastically change the results of Ohio’s and even the nation-wide elections being that Ohio is a swing state. At the same time, I cannot deny that cleaning up the voting constituency ensures the integrity of the election, revealing the complexity of the issue at hand: how can we ensure the integrity of elections without infringing on the rights of the citizens? Regardless, purging voters due to inactivity is definitely not the right solution to this problem.
ReplyDeletePurging inactive voters will dramatically impact the minority vote because in general, minorities vote in lower numbers, causing many of them to be removed from voting lists. In a very close race such of that of Ohio, this small amount of voters being turned away at the polls could effect the outcome of an election. If this were to happen in many states, I do not think that the outcome would be so bad just because most states are not swing states. Overall, getting rid of voters from the list due to their inactivity is not the right way clean up voting rosters.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is pretty clear that purging voters is unconstitutional, as it is a direct violation of the First Amendment. The US already has an incredibly low voter turnout in comparison to other Democratic nations, and this pattern of purging will only decrease this turnout. This is especially detrimental to minorities who are already underrepresented in the polls, as they are less likely to vote in every election. It is baffling to me that a state would discourage voting, because individuals would be less likely to vote if they believe that their votes are being suppressed. Overall, this recent trend of purging will be incredibly detrimental to the democratic process in the nation, as minorities will continue to be underrepresented and swing states, like Ohio, could alter the outcome of crucial elections.
ReplyDeleteI think purging inactive voters is very unconstitutional because it violates the first amendment. Purging voters is taking away free speech and it also takes away to right to vote which is 2 violations. Minority groups will have much less of a say in the political process and their turnout will be even lower than before. I think that voting should be a choice and people should not be purged just because they choose not to vote. The results from Ohio elections would be much more one sided to active participants if this were to happen.
ReplyDeletePurging voters is undoubtedly an unconstitutional act and it is also very undemocratic. Though one can argue that not voting is an undemocratic act, but voting has been such a fundamental aspect of America that it should always be available to everyone that has the right to vote. Frankly, I found it surprising that Ohio would even do this considering the amount of backlash it would get. Additionally, purging voters would significantly affect minority voters since they have are most likely to be inactive due to factors such as discrimination, poverty, and other unfortunate circumstances. Also the older, white population's vote would be more represented since they tend to be the most active voters. Purging votes would just result in inaccurate election results that is not representative of the whole population.
ReplyDeleteI believe purging inactive voters is a very unconstitutional move by Ohio that goes against the first amendment right of freedom of speech as well as the right to vote. Such an action will only further impact minority groups that already have a difficult time voting potentially due to poverty or discrimination. In silencing their voice, these minorities will have less and less of a voice within politics and from there future legislation. As Mary mentions, by purging previously inactive voters, the results of Ohio will be inaccurate as they are not accurately representative of the population. If other states follow Ohio in doing such an act, the purpose of voting and this representative system will be greatly flawed and only stray further from democracy.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is a problem that people who have the right to vote are not exercising their power, I think ultimately it's wrong to purge inactive voters. Some people view not voting as disrespectful because many in the past fought so hard to obtain such rights, and now it's just going to waste. However, people who are uninterested in current issues, and thus inactive, may be more intrigued by policy and topics in the future. It's possible that new candidates may bring ideas to the table that they care extremely about. These people should still have the same chance to express their opinion, so purging voters ultimately takes away from democracy.
ReplyDeleteI believe that purging inactive voters is unconstitutional. Although these people have chosen in the past to not exercise their power to vote, this does not mean that they will not eventually choose to vote, especially when an issue arises that they care deeply about. These individuals are citizens who have committed nothing wrong, are not felons, and therefore there is no good reason to take away their voice. This is especially important in a swing state, where the votes a few people can change the outcome of the entire election. If inactive voters are silenced, then there is a possibility that the few people needed to change the course of an election will not be able to do so.
ReplyDeleteThe majority of voters, for the most part, is made up of those who are white and on the older side. Purging voters that do not participate creates the effect of increasing that number of white older voters and decreasing the votes of the minorities and younger voters. With Ohio being a swing state, and older white voters being (mostly) Republican, this could cause Ohio to transition from a swing state to a red state in upcoming elections. It's unconstitutional and unfair to purge voters simply because they are inactive- it is one's right under the First Amendment to have freedom of speech and purging voters directly violates that right.
ReplyDeleteas said in the above comments, I think that this purge is in fact unconstitutional as it goes against the first amendment. The 1st amendment provides every citizen the right to vote, and that right does not mean it is required. While low voter turnout is a serious problem in this country, banning people from voting only creates a similar problem. Ohio should focus on promoting people to vote rather than taking away their rights for not doing so.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that the action of purging inactive voters would have that big of an impact on minority groups, since those who want to vote will make sure that they are registered. Yet, since Ohio did not make it clear that those who did not demonstrate political activity would be purged from the voters list,I think this could have an impact on any voter who was unaware of the consequences. I don't think it necessarily silenced minority voter's votes as anyone who wasn't politically active was purged. Purging previous inactive voters can affect the common marginal results of Ohio's elections as the votes may not be a close depending on which party constituents were less active.
ReplyDeleteI agree that purging voters is unconstitutional, as it violates the first amendment. Minority groups have low voter turnout rates and is a problem and continuing to decrease the votes is impactful. Ohio is normally a close race and so changing that will be very impactful in the election results. Overall there will be a dramatic shift in American politics.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the comments above as I think that the purging of voters is unconstitutional because it clearly goes against the 15th Amendment. Moreover, the purging of the voters leads to their need to reregister which could lead to less political participation which is already a burgeoning problem in the United States. Nonetheless, the removal of the right to vote violates the first amendment, so revoking the right to vote due to a lack of participation leads to a removal of basic rights which is a form of governmental corruption. In terms of the Ohio election, I do not think that purging voters will lead to lower voter turnout because the voters have already elected to not vote. Nonetheless, this does not make it correct to take away the rights of voters. Overall, I believe that the removal of the rights is completely unconstitutional and even though voters may decide not to vote, there is no need to remove their right to vote as they may want to in the future.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that purging inactive voters is unconstitutional. I believe that we need to replace our current system of tracking voters because it is clearly inefficient. If we had a biometric system, we would stop basically all instances of illegal voting. It also would remove the need for purging voter roles, and make voting much more convenient as voters would be able to avoid long queues. This system has worked in large countries like India and wouldn't be too hard to implement.
ReplyDeleteAs stated before, I believe that purging voters is unconstitutional as it violates the first amendment, even if they do not vote in the past three federal elections. Everyone deserves the right to vote and purging them for not is unconstitutional. Also as Mikayla stated, I do not believe that it would have a major impact on minority groups if they were to purge the nonactive voter as people would do whatever they could to keep their ability to vote. This would change election if other states also agreed to purge people, as the whole population won't be represented when people decide to go and try to vote again.
ReplyDeletePurging inactive voters may diminish the representation of minority groups in the voting system. Purging inactive voters affects everyone, not just minorities, but minorities are affected more than the majority because they have a lower voter turnout. More purging means possible less political participation and a further disproportionate voter representation. Minorities will have a weaker voice, and the preferences of minorities may go disregarded.
ReplyDeleteThe voter turnout for minority groups is already very small relative to the makeup of the United States. I think there are no benefits from purging voters, especially with the lack of clarity the rule brings with it. It is definitely unconstitutional, as it violates freedom of speech. By decreasing the turnout from minorities, Ohio's current state as a swing state may not remain. Swing states are vital for preventing the spread of polarization... So this could further increase polarization
ReplyDelete^ Albert Liu
ReplyDeleteI'm not so sure on the controversy around race-biases in the purging process, but purging inactive voters is unconstitutional, because it takes some people's right to vote. I would call it a misguided step with good intentions, because the premise of keeping updated voter rolls is to prevent fake votes from being entered by people masquerading as the deceased. A better system is to track the status of citizens, add them when they are born, activate at 18, track residency, and wipe them off the list as they die. Currently, we've had troubles tracking who's dead, based on the Social Security Administrations Death Master File (which wasn't intended to be 100% accurate in the first place), so it might be better to add that job to the US Census Bureau, and let all states use the list to track the living and the dead.
Purging the voters is unconstitutional because it is ultimately up to the voter if they chose to vote for a certain election. This with purge I don't believe that it will help with the voter turnout, and currently the U.S. have low counts of voter turnouts. With this midterm election it would be important for as many people to vote, especially since Ohio tends to be a swing state. This purge also could impact minorities, as it might be a obstacle that could stop them from voting. This purging could inspire the people that were purged to vote for this coming election and future elections because they know that a purge might be something the state might continue to do, and it is a swing state.
ReplyDeleteNo, purging voters isn't unconstitutional, but that doesn't make it OK, I feel like the founders would have zero reservations about the policy, especially because such measures disproportionately affect minorities. People who have been previously isolated from politics, largely minority groups, will now be unable to vote, even if recent events may inspire them to participate. It's too early to say whether voter purging will change the results of the election, but it's certainly the Democrats who are hit hardest by this move. A lower voter turnout will be created as not voting in a single presidential election and its respective midterm will for all intents remove a voter from politics forever (because the reapplication process is intentionally made difficult).
ReplyDelete