Republicans rush to Purge Voter Rolls...

A key section of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which was designed to protect minority voters from state disenfranchisement, was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2013, allowing states to begin making changes affecting voting without first getting federal approval.

Then the US Supreme Court recklessly and mistakenly did this…

In 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court recently approved Ohio’s method for purging voters from the rolls. The Obama Justice Department had supported the challengers in the early stages of the court fight, but the Trump administration switched sides and supported the state.

Today? Who could have guessed…oh, not the US Supreme Court who’s actions seem strangely removed from reality:

The nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice found that the mostly Southern jurisdictions that had once been required to get changes to voting policies pre-approved by the Justice Department had higher rates of purging than jurisdictions that were not previously subject to pre-clearance. A key section of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which was designed to protect minority voters from state disenfranchisement, was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2013, allowing states to begin making changes affecting voting without first getting federal approval.

Additionally:

Under the Trump administration, “the Department of Justice has abdicated its responsibility to protect against bad voter purges. They’ve actually been encouraging jurisdictions to purge more aggressively.”

The latest ruling was that last nail in the voting rights coffin:

In 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court recently approved Ohio’s method for purging voters from the rolls. The Obama Justice Department had supported the challengers in the early stages of the court fight, but the Trump administration switched sides and supported the state.

The proof is out there for anyone to see just who Republicans are targeting:

Dissenting Justices pointed out the obvious:

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in one of the Supreme Court’s dissenting opinions, agreed. “As one example, amici point to an investigation that revealed that in Hamilton County, ‘African-American-majority neighborhoods in downtown Cincinnati had 10% of their voters removed due to inactivity’ since 2012, as ‘compared to only 4% of voters in a suburban, majority-white neighborhood,’” Sotomayor wrote, citing a brief from the NAACP.

Justice Stephen Breyer, in a dissent joined by the other liberal justices, said, “Using a registrant’s failure to vote is not a reasonable method for identifying voters whose registrations are likely invalid.” Since people tend not to send confirmation notices back to the government, it is not a reliable way to determine whether someone has moved away, Breyer added. Writing for the dissenters, Justice Stephen Breyer said that the majority had misinterpreted the law. He noted that federal statute does not allow someone to be purged from the rolls “by reason of the person’s failure to vote. In my view,” added Breyer, “Ohio’s program does just that.”

Breyer claimed the postcard resulting from not voting violated the intent of the original law since it did not say anything about additional follow-up. 

A former liberal radio talk host who likes to ask the “follow-up question” at Democurmudgeon.blogspot.com