SCOTUS ruling VA

[Marvin the Martian]

I don’t have time to read this entire thread, but you don’t have a full grasp of the details of this case. Research further. Here’s a clip from the attorney’s that filed the amicus brief on behalf of the St of VA:

View embedded media

What’s amazing is that a Federal Judge would set 1,600 people up for a felony charge if they follow through and vote! This is mind-boggling!!!

The were not all non citizens:

Supreme Court lets Virginia resume its purge of voter rolls before the election

Over the objection of the three liberal justices, the Supreme Court allowed Virginia to continue purging people from its voter rolls.

www.usatoday.com

The advocacy groups quoted Prince William County Registrar Eric Olsen, who said at an election board meeting Sept. 30 that his office reviewed 162 people listed as noncitizens in the state’s computer system and found that 43 had voted before. But his office checked and found that all 43 had verified their citizenship − some as many as five times − but were still dropped from voter rolls.​

​

A Trump supporter who was purged from the rolls told Cardinal News that he suspects he forgot to mark his citizenship status on the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles form when he renewed his driver’s license.​

​

Another voter, who showed NPR her passport, said she doesn’t know why the DMV incorrectly recorded her as a noncitizen.​

So right off the bat he is wrong in his assessment.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Those are all really good criticisms of Fishkin. I took a seminar from him at UT, with just 9 other students. I then worked as a RA for him for a year. I had many of the same questions and concerns. He didn't seem to like them.

Was he involved in the start of Braver Angels? It sure is a similar idea.

I wish something like that would work, just can't see it. Without it, participation. It at least should help people feel they are having input. And that is why I hate gerrymandering, it pretty much eliminates the value of participation. In the minority in a D+20 or R+20, is your elected official really going to listen to you? I'm not even saying agree, I am saying thoughtfully listen and consider.

 

[mohoosier]

The were not all non citizens:

Supreme Court lets Virginia resume its purge of voter rolls before the election

Over the objection of the three liberal justices, the Supreme Court allowed Virginia to continue purging people from its voter rolls.

www.usatoday.com

The advocacy groups quoted Prince William County Registrar Eric Olsen, who said at an election board meeting Sept. 30 that his office reviewed 162 people listed as noncitizens in the state’s computer system and found that 43 had voted before. But his office checked and found that all 43 had verified their citizenship − some as many as five times − but were still dropped from voter rolls.​

​

A Trump supporter who was purged from the rolls told Cardinal News that he suspects he forgot to mark his citizenship status on the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles form when he renewed his driver’s license.​

​

Another voter, who showed NPR her passport, said she doesn’t know why the DMV incorrectly recorded her as a noncitizen.​

So right off the bat he is wrong in his assessment.

There are more than a quarter million illegal immigrants living in the commonwealth, according to the Migration Policy Institute. In 2020, nearly 4.5 million people voted in Virginia.

1,600 attempted to vote in 2024, and your concern focuses on 43? What’s 1,600 minus 43?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

There are more than a quarter million illegal immigrants living in the commonwealth, according to the Migration Policy Institute. In 2020, nearly 4.5 million people voted in Virginia.

1,600 attempted to vote in 2024, and your concern focuses on 43? What’s 1,600 minus 43?

Yes, I am concerned when ANY American is denied the right to vote. Any American.

Where is it that 1600 attempted to vote in 2024? We have a lot of evidence that people do incorrectly register (by malice or accident), but that isn't the same as voting.

 

[outside shooter]

There are more than a quarter million illegal immigrants living in the commonwealth, according to the Migration Policy Institute. In 2020, nearly 4.5 million people voted in Virginia.

1,600 attempted to vote in 2024, and your concern focuses on 43? What’s 1,600 minus 43?

Only 162 were checked, not 1,600, and 43 of the 162 checked clearly shouldn't have been on there.

Are you fine with taking away a constitutional right for 43/162 = 27% of the population?

Obviously the procedure used was deeply flawed, to make mistakes at that rate.

 

[BradStevens]

Was he involved in the start of Braver Angels? It sure is a similar idea.

I wish something like that would work, just can't see it. Without it, participation. It at least should help people feel they are having input. And that is why I hate gerrymandering, it pretty much eliminates the value of participation. In the minority in a D+20 or R+20, is your elected official really going to listen to you? I'm not even saying agree, I am saying thoughtfully listen and consider.

I don't believe so, no.

Here's one of his talks. When I knew him, his beard was completely black.

 

[mohoosier]

Yes, I am concerned when ANY American is denied the right to vote. Any American.

Where is it that 1600 attempted to vote in 2024? We have a lot of evidence that people do incorrectly register (by malice or accident), but that isn't the same as voting.

What is your definition of an American?

One more, why did the DOJ file the lawsuit?

No, two more - what about the 250k illegally in the State of Virginia? No concern there?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

What is your definition of an American?

One more, why did the DOJ file the lawsuit?

No, two more - what about the 250k illegally in the State of Virginia? No concern there?

Anyone born in America, anyone naturalized as an American citizen. Same as everyone else.

DoJ brought the suit because there is a law that says no systemic changes to voter rolls can happen within 90 days of an election. The reason is simple, most of us do not want legal voters disenfranchised.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I think a more informed electorate would be great. The example in the article involved a weekend of discussing issues. What percentage of Americans would commit to that? How many would have time to do that way from other activities? So we really would have a weekend of the political class at this event. Would that make the people convinced we are run by elites less convinced elites run us? How often would it need to happen, yearly? Would it largely just be people who can afford to go to another city and stay overnight?

I think that article has a great deal of merit, but I can't see how it replaces trying to get people to vote. If people don't care enough to vote, they won't attend. That won't move them any closer. I cannot imagine the Bernie Bros or ardent Trump supporters wanting to take part in something like that. It seems those groups view the middle as more the enemy than the "other" side (a Trotsky belief that people who urge compromise are the true enemies of believers).

So maybe they were careful and brought in the extremes in their trial. Or maybe the people who were willing to go were self-selected and thus more willing to listen.

The advocacy groups quoted Prince William County Registrar Eric Olsen, who said at an election board meeting Sept. 30 that his office reviewed 162 people listed as noncitizens in the state’s computer system and found that 43 had voted before. But his office checked and found that all 43 had verified their citizenship − some as many as five times − but were still dropped from voter rolls.​

​

A Trump supporter who was purged from the rolls told Cardinal News that he suspects he forgot to mark his citizenship status on the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles form when he renewed his driver’s license.​

​

Another voter, who showed NPR her passport, said she doesn’t know why the DMV incorrectly recorded her as a noncitizen.​

​

Supreme Court lets Virginia resume its purge of voter rolls before the election

Over the objection of the three liberal justices, the Supreme Court allowed Virginia to continue purging people from its voter rolls.

www.usatoday.com

What is the problem here? Looks like everything works as intended. If a voter screws up the paper work and then must respond in some way, that is a good thing isn’t it?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

What is the problem here? Looks like everything works as intended. If a voter screws up the paper work and then must respond in some way, that is a good thing isn’t it?

Great, we have you in agreement, the government is perfect thus ONLY the voter could have made a mistake. You can expect me to throw this at you often.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Great, we have you in agreement, the government is perfect thus ONLY the voter could have made a mistake. You can expect me to throw this at you often.

What are you talking about? How can this process deny a legal voter the right to vote unless the voter fails to do something?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

What are you talking about? How can this process deny a legal voter the right to vote unless the voter fails to do something?

When one gets a license, there is a box to mark if one is a citizen. One person in that said they forgot to mark it. Sure, forgetting to mark a box in a license is a good reason to strip someone their right to vote.

But more is that even if there is software scanning these, mistakes happen. Forms can become wrinkled, smudged, etc. One person said they took proof in 5 times and we're still dropped. Is that their fault.

There was a damn good reason Congress wanted a 90 day period, to avoid mistakes. Mistakes happen, maybe by the voter. I guess not by the government now that we know you do not even consider that as possible. It never entered into your thought that 99.99% accuracy still leaves errors if you do enough.

I have seen people filling out forms, most are in a hurry and not perfectly studious. It would be nice if we were all perfect, we ain't.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

When one gets a license, there is a box to mark if one is a citizen. One person in that said they forgot to mark it. Sure, forgetting to mark a box in a license is a good reason to strip someone their right to vote.

But more is that even if there is software scanning these, mistakes happen. Forms can become wrinkled, smudged, etc. One person said they took proof in 5 times and we're still dropped. Is that their fault.

There was a damn good reason Congress wanted a 90 day period, to avoid mistakes. Mistakes happen, maybe by the voter. I guess not by the government now that we know you do not even consider that as possible. It never entered into your thought that 99.99% accuracy still leaves errors if you do enough.

I have seen people filling out forms, most are in a hurry and not perfectly studious. It would be nice if we were all perfect, we ain't.

Failing to mark a box did not strip anyone of their right to vote. We can’t discuss this if you don’t know how the Virginia statute works.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Once a vote is counted, it is counted. We don't want a system in this country where one can track back votes. Do you really want the government to be able to reverse engineer how you voted? So with no way of knowing his vote, how could it be removed?

How convenient.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

How convenient.

He's correct about this.

I shudder to think of the ramifications of data being recorded and saved of which voters voted for which candidates. I understand the benefits of having that. But, to me, they are easily outweighed by the risks.

Think of the "card check" process that unions have lusted over for decades. Rather than having a secret ballot vote, what they want is to just be able to go around and get people to openly declare their support (or opposition) for an organizing campaign. I can certainly see why they'd want that! They'd know who is and isn't on their side and could, er, assert some more robust forms of persuasion.

No. We do not want our elections systems to record who we vote for. That would almost certainly lead to some very bad things.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

He's correct about this.

I shudder to think of the ramifications of data being recorded and saved of which voters voted for which candidates. I understand the benefits of having that. But, to me, they are easily outweighed by the risks.

Think of the "card check" process that unions have lusted over for decades. Rather than having a secret ballot vote, what they want is to just be able to go around and get people to openly declare their support (or opposition) for an organizing campaign. I can certainly see why they'd want that! They'd know who is and isn't on their side and could, er, assert some more robust forms of persuasion.

No. We do not want our elections systems to record who we vote for. That would almost certainly lead to some very bad things.

I am amazed that some of our more conspiratorial friends want the government to be able to see how they voted.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Failing to mark a box did not strip anyone of their right to vote. We can’t discuss this if you don’t know how the Virginia statute works.

Let us also recall what Mark Milton mentioned, the governor issued an executive order to purge people "suspected" of being illegally in the country. You did not answer that part, is "suspected" good enough for you?

The article I posted said people had taken evidence of citizenship in and still lost their registration. That is exhibit 1 of why we don't do crap at the last minute.

 

[dbmhoosier]

 

[snarlcakes]

Shhhhhh. I'm burnishing my CV for the future Dream Team application. @hookyIU1990 needs a man on the inside for his upcoming coup.

Hey jackass, we can read. We aint that fukin stoopid. You and that hook guy stand know chance against the Dream Team.

 

[IUCrazy2]

He's correct about this.

I shudder to think of the ramifications of data being recorded and saved of which voters voted for which candidates. I understand the benefits of having that. But, to me, they are easily outweighed by the risks.

Think of the "card check" process that unions have lusted over for decades. Rather than having a secret ballot vote, what they want is to just be able to go around and get people to openly declare their support (or opposition) for an organizing campaign. I can certainly see why they'd want that! They'd know who is and isn't on their side and could, er, assert some more robust forms of persuasion.

No. We do not want our elections systems to record who we vote for. That would almost certainly lead to some very bad things.

No, how convenient that there is nothing in place to stop it and then when found that something did happen that they know shouldn't have the process doesn't allow for correction.

I mean, in a time when they majority of people do not believe that elections are on the up and up, it is a great model of elections to have.

The dude who voted when he shouldn't should have been flown to his country of origin that day and he and his entire extended family should be on a no entry list.

 

[IUCrazy2]

I am amazed that some of our more conspiratorial friends want the government to be able to see how they voted.

That isn't the part I am bitching about.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

No, how convenient that there is nothing in place to stop it and then when found that something did happen that they know shouldn't have the process doesn't allow for correction.

I mean, in a time when they majority of people do not believe that elections are on the up and up, it is a great model of elections to have.

The dude who voted when he shouldn't should have been flown to his country of origin that day and he and his entire extended family should be on a no entry list.

Well, I'm 100% in favor of having safeguards to prevent this -- so long as they're properly balanced with protecting franchise.

But once a vote has been cast, there's nothing that can or should be done with it....even in an instance like this. If we're going to stop fraudulent votes, it's going to have to be prior to their being cast.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Let us also recall what Mark Milton mentioned, the governor issued an executive order to purge people "suspected" of being illegally in the country. You did not answer that part, is "suspected" good enough for you?

The article I posted said people had taken evidence of citizenship in and still lost their registration. That is exhibit 1 of why we don't do crap at the last minute.

No suspected isn’t good enough and it is actually irrelevant. The court makes the decision
.The EO has no effect on the court’s decision other than raising the issue to be decided.

I think your second paragraph is incorrect. Your “crap at the last minute” is a nothing burger. There is enough time to do what is necessary.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Well, I'm 100% in favor of having safeguards to prevent this -- so long as they're properly balanced with protecting franchise.

But once a vote has been cast, there's nothing that can or should be done with it....even in an instance like this. If we're going to stop fraudulent votes, it's going to have to be prior to their being cast.

Other than kicking that dude the eff out of the country.

 

[mohoosier]

View embedded media

Come on man, this is disenfranchisement! Lay off DBM, stop the voter suppression shit - it's getting old!!

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Other than kicking that dude the eff out of the country.

No issue for me there. I'd expect that if I was in another country, didn't have the right to vote there, and went and did it anyway that they'd be putting me on the first plane back home.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

No suspected isn’t good enough and it is actually irrelevant. The court makes the decision
.The EO has no effect on the court’s decision other than raising the issue to be decided.

I think your second paragraph is incorrect. Your “crap at the last minute” is a nothing burger. There is enough time to do what is necessary.

No, there is not always time. You took like a month long vacation to France in the past, suppose you mailed in your ballot and left not knowing that you were about to be declared ineligible. I don't know, did you forward your mail to France? Could you come back to present your passport to the clerk?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

What are you talking about? How can this process deny a legal voter the right to vote unless the voter fails to do something?

OK, according to this USA Today article, many of these people are naturalized citizens who, at one time, were not citizens. So before they were citizens, they checked the box.

So it is Virginia's incompetence in not realizing a human can go from non-citizens to citizens. Some of these people marked nothing wrong.

Given that, I am a bit surprised the court let this go on. A system that disenfranchises AMERICAN citizens days ahead of an election through NO fault whatsoever of their own should be viewed as problematic.

As a blue state with Republican power over elections, Virginia draws GOP attention

As a majority-Democratic state with Republican power over elections, Virginia could draw challenges to election results in 2024.

www.usatoday.com

 

[CO. Hoosier]

OK, according to this USA Today article, many of these people are naturalized citizens who, at one time, were not citizens. So before they were citizens, they checked the box.

So it is Virginia's incompetence in not realizing a human can go from non-citizens to citizens. Some of these people marked nothing wrong.

Given that, I am a bit surprised the court let this go on. A system that disenfranchises AMERICAN citizens days ahead of an election through NO fault whatsoever of their own should be viewed as problematic.

As a blue state with Republican power over elections, Virginia draws GOP attention

As a majority-Democratic state with Republican power over elections, Virginia could draw challenges to election results in 2024.

www.usatoday.com

The voters neglected to inform the voting officials they became citizens and therefore became eligible voters. . Do you really expect the county clerk to just assume eligibility?

 

[TR32]

I think that the core issue here is conflict (specifically, a timing conflict) between the state law utilized by Youngkin and a related federal statute that proscribes a different timeline.

I can't say I've taken much time in getting super familiar with the details. But, if that's the case, then I don't think this is a case of the DOJ just brazenly trying to make it possible for non-citizens to vote. And it's being cast that way.

Personally, I think what a state should do in a situation like (although VA's law may not allow for this) is to just accept provisional ballots from anybody in question. That gives the state more time to properly vet them and determine if they are or aren't eligible. If they're eligible, count it and take steps to ensure they aren't back on a list subject to being culled from the registry...if they aren't, toss it and then get them off the rolls.

Why can they not just make it clear to anyone voting what the eligibility criteria are? I don't see this as a partisan issue. You are either eligible or you aren't. It shouldn't be something that is determined after the fact.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

The voters neglected to inform the voting officials they became citizens and therefore became eligible voters. . Do you really expect the county clerk to just assume eligibility?

The question was not about voting, it was about citizenship. Shouldn't VA have access to naturalization records to cross check?

Do you think people tell the DMV when they lose/gain weight, change glasses, change hair color? All part of your identity on your license.

If someone received their license 3 years ago, they most likely do not even remember that question. Do you remember every question on every form you filled out?

I posted a link elsewhere that there are over 2 million people registered to vote in multiple states. A clear potential source of fraud. Yet nothing has been done. Virginia left ERIC, the group that alerted states when voters moved. Doubtless there are more than 1600 voters registered in VA and other states simultaneously. But Youngkin doesn't give a damn about that fraud. Why not? Why don't Republicans care about it? Seriously, I keep mentioning it and you guys blow it off. Why did conservative states scared sh*tless about voter fraud leave the group that tracked a major possible source over the requirement to send postcards to non voters reminding them to register? If fraud is such a big deal, why?

 

[UncleMark]

The voters neglected to inform the voting officials they became citizens and therefore became eligible voters. . Do you really expect the county clerk to just assume eligibility?

They attested to their citizenship when they registered.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

They attested to their citizenship when they registered.

Great point!

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

They attested to their citizenship when they registered.

One of the benefits of requiring state-issued Photo ID to vote is that eligibility can be reliably determined with plenty of time in advance in case there’s an issue.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

The question was not about voting, it was about citizenship. Shouldn't VA have access to naturalization records to cross check?

Do you think people tell the DMV when they lose/gain weight, change glasses, change hair color? All part of your identity on your license.

If someone received their license 3 years ago, they most likely do not even remember that question. Do you remember every question on every form you filled out?

I posted a link elsewhere that there are over 2 million people registered to vote in multiple states. A clear potential source of fraud. Yet nothing has been done. Virginia left ERIC, the group that alerted states when voters moved. Doubtless there are more than 1600 voters registered in VA and other states simultaneously. But Youngkin doesn't give a damn about that fraud. Why not? Why don't Republicans care about it? Seriously, I keep mentioning it and you guys blow it off. Why did conservative states scared sh*tless about voter fraud leave the group that tracked a major possible source over the requirement to send postcards to non voters reminding them to register? If fraud is such a big deal, why?

It's not fraud to be registered in two states. No one ever gets charged for that. People move and there is no requirement to notify the state you're moving from that you've moved and request that you be taken off the voter rolls. We only submit a change of address form to the US post office in your new state. I assume the state has a process to verify its voter roll which eventually removes the moved person from it. It is voter fraud for a person to vote in his new state AND his old state. I'm pretty certain that I was still on the voter rolls in Texas in Ohio in 2012. I retired from the Navy in September 2012, and I had been a Texas resident (though I didn't live there for nearly all of my career - it's a military thing) since the early 1990 through the end of my active-duty service. Since I retired in September and registered to vote in Ohio for the 2012 election, I voted in Ohio, and I expect that I was still listed as an eligible voter in Texas for that election. Obviously, I didn't vote in Texas. I would have had to have asked for the usual absentee ballot which I didn't do knowing I was now officially an Ohio resident. I suppose I could have, and they could have charged and prosecuted me for voting there too. I'm sure Texas purged me at some point because something in their process would have figured it out.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

It's not fraud to be registered in two states. No one ever gets charged for that. People move and there is no requirement to notify the state you're moving from that you've moved and request that you be taken off the voter rolls. We only submit a change of address form to the US post office in your new state. I assume the state has a process to verify its voter roll which eventually removes the moved person from it. It is voter fraud for a person to vote in his new state AND his old state. I'm pretty certain that I was still on the voter rolls in Texas in Ohio in 2012. I retired from the Navy in September 2012, and I had been a Texas resident (though I didn't live there for nearly all of my career - it's a military thing) since the early 1990 through the end of my active-duty service. Since I retired in September and registered to vote in Ohio for the 2012 election, I voted in Ohio, and I expect that I was still listed as an eligible voter in Texas for that election. Obviously, I didn't vote in Texas. I would have had to have asked for the usual absentee ballot which I didn't do knowing I was now officially an Ohio resident. I suppose I could have, and they could have charged and prosecuted me for voting there too. I'm sure Texas purged me at some point because something in their process would have figured it out.

Right, it is not fraud. But it is a source of potential voter fraud. Just as it is not a source of VOTER fraud for a non-resident to be registered. If they never vote, there is not much real damage

But we know this source of potential fraud is there. States not in ERIC clean up rolls largely based on people not voting. So if one moves from VA to FL, they can easily vote in both because the states do not talk to each other. But Youngkin has done nothing to eliminate that from happening, in fact, by leaving ERIC he has actively made it far easier to occur. Why would someone wanting to be tough on voter fraud intentionally leave this path open?

It isn't about voter fraud, he wants to be seen as tough on people here illegally is a certainly plausible answer. I am not saying it is wrong to be tough, I am saying don't confuse that as being tough on irregular voting. If that is what he was tough on, VA would be in ERIC.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

They attested to their citizenship when they registered.

So what?

In some blue states the attestation is conclusive for practical purposes. But it shouldn’t be if there is other inconsistent evidence. Clearing up the record is a simple thing yet the Dems lose their shit about it.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

So what?

In some blue states the attestation is conclusive for practical purposes. But it shouldn’t be if there is other inconsistent evidence. Clearing up the record is a simple thing yet the Dems lose their shit about it.

It should be an easy thing, so about that person quoted in USATODAY they took proof down 5 times and were still removed.

It should be easy, but one shouldn't do it right before an election just in case it isn't.

If your client had a deadline of August 1 at noon to do something that should be easy, would you advise them to wait until 11:59 on that day? Or would you warn them they need to take into account the unknown unknown? The unknown unknown is why doing things at the last moment is not advisable.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

So what?

In some blue states the attestation is conclusive for practical purposes. But it shouldn’t be if there is other inconsistent evidence. Clearing up the record is a simple thing yet the Dems lose their shit about it.

Throwing citizens off the rolls days before an election isn't "clearing up the record."

 

[UncleMark]

It should be easy, but one shouldn't do it right before an election just in case it isn't.

Throwing citizens off the rolls days before an election isn't "clearing up the record."

C'mon, guys. A Republican did it so we know it was righteous and done for the good of all America.