RSN Fundraising Banner
Alarm Over Voter Purges as 17 Million Americans Removed From Rolls in Two Years
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=23323"><span class="small">Tom McCarthy, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Friday, 02 August 2019 08:31

McCarthy writes: "US election jurisdictions with histories of egregious voter discrimination have been purging voter rolls at a rate 40% beyond the national average, according to a watchdog report released on Thursday."

The disproportionate purging of voters has resulted in an estimated 1.1 million fewer voters between 2016 and 2018, the Brennan Center said. (photo: Michael Reynolds/EPA)
The disproportionate purging of voters has resulted in an estimated 1.1 million fewer voters between 2016 and 2018, the Brennan Center said. (photo: Michael Reynolds/EPA)


Alarm Over Voter Purges as 17 Million Americans Removed From Rolls in Two Years

By Tom McCarthy, Guardian UK

02 August 19

 

S election jurisdictions with histories of egregious voter discrimination have been purging voter rolls at a rate 40% beyond the national average, according to a watchdog report released on Thursday.

At least 17 million voters were purged nationwide between 2016 and 2018, according to a study by the Brennan Center for Justice. The number was basically unchanged from the previous two-year period.

While the rate of voter purges elsewhere has declined slowly, jurisdictions released from federal oversight by a watershed 2013 supreme court ruling had purge rates “significantly higher” than jurisdictions not previously subjected to oversight, the Brennan Center found in a previous report.

That trend has continued, the watchdog said, with the disproportionate purging of voters resulting in an estimated 1.1 million fewer voters between 2016 and 2018.

Voter purges accelerated in the United States with the 2013 Shelby County v Holder ruling, which released counties with histories of voter discrimination from federal oversight imposed by the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

The Voting Rights Act barred jurisdictions with “evidence of actual voting discrimination” – for example, registration tests and a voter rate at least 12% below the national average – from changing their voting procedures without “pre-clearance” from federal authorities.

In Shelby county, the supreme court declared that “nearly 50 years later, things have changed dramatically” and released the so-called section 5 jurisdictions from oversight. Chief justice John Roberts wrote that “the tests and devices that blocked ballot access have been forbidden nationwide for over 40 years”.

But the ruling was criticized for apparent blindness to contemporary voter suppression practices including strict voter identification laws, partisan gerrymandering and aggressive voter purges.

A federal court for North Dakota on Wednesday upheld a law requiring voters to have a residential street address, rejecting a complaint by a Native American group that the law amounted to voter suppression, because many of its members had no such address.

A dissenting judge said the law had a “devastating effect” on Native American voters. The Columbia University professor Katherine Franke tweeted that the ruling was a “huge setback for Native American voting rights”.

Voter roll purges are regularly undertaken to account for voters who move or die. But critics say that aggressive and unfair purges of voter rolls in recent years – such as a purge of 107,000 voters in Georgia in 2017 by the then secretary of state, Brian Kemp, who was subsequently elected governor by the electorate he had culled – have warped democracy.

“As the country prepares for the 2020 election, election administrators should take steps to ensure that every eligible American can cast a ballot next November,” the Brennan Center said in a statement. “Election day is often too late to discover that a person has been wrongfully purged.”

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+6 # chapdrum 2019-08-02 10:59
"...such as a purge of 107,000 voters in Georgia in 2017 by the then secretary of state, Brian Kemp, who was subsequently elected governor by the electorate he had culled..."
There it is, right there. We know that Republican politicians and government officials engage in this practice, yet huge numbers of people vote for them nonetheless - over and over again.
 
 
0 # Robbee 2019-08-02 11:54
Alarm Over Voter Purges as 17 Million Americans Removed From Rolls in Two Years
Tom McCarthy, Guardian UK
02 August 19

- in case you haven't noticed? us humans have been at the mercy of corporations for the past 45 years - their knees choke our pay! - if nothing else convinces you of this? you can tell by looking at the lack of real wage increases during the past 45 years of the computer, internet and other wondrous productivity increases! - THIS SELECTION IS REMARKABLE!

to declare that corporate money is speech, and so, CANNOT BE CURTAILED - means that humans can never speak as loud as corporations! who possess virtually all speech! - IN ESSENCE, HUMANS ARE UNHEARD!

bernie valiantly tries to parlay his run for prez to, despite the fact that he can never match a corporate ad budget! try to get his campaign NEAR FAIRLY heard!

to get FAIRLY heard, bernie would need to sponsor faux news, at the same level that corporations do!

to get FAIRLY heard, bernie would need to sponsor news "organs" NOT affiliated. on a revolving-door basis! with repuke propaganda! at the same level that corporations do! - namely!

abc
cbs
nbc

dnc

cnn
msnbc

nyt
wp

the same forces that prevent bernie from getting FAIRLY heard MUTE other progressives, n/k/a "radical socialists" who do not believe in the self-indulgent "american dream" that is not FAIRLY shared to humans!

THEY STOLE OUR DREAM!

THE FORMER "AMERICAN DREAM" IS THE CORPORATE DREAM!

to be cont'd!
 
 
0 # sirimada 2019-08-02 13:36
I’ve ever understood who makes the decisions for corporations as to which parties and candidates receive their funds?! Is it the CEO? Stockholders? Some PR person? Board of Directors? Or some janitor?! Very strange situation!
 
 
0 # Robbee 2019-08-02 18:51
cont'd

the writers of our const. wrote to protect humans from corporations especially banks, that threatened the power of free humans to democratically govern themselves

to protect humans from corporations, writers enacted scotus

simply put -

for the rest of our lives, no more than 4 dem appointees to scotus in essence represent humans

5 repuke appointees to scotus represent corporations

it stands to reason that appointed protectors of corporations protect corporations

it stands to reason that appointed protectors of corporations rule that to protec and advance the rights of corporations is constitutional

it stands to reason that appointed protectors of corporations rule that to protec and advance the rights of humans is UN constitutional

gerrymandering is the jiggering of federal congressional districts and state legislative districts to favor the party in power

in essene, politicians select their voters

this jiggering discounts the votes of opposing voters

q e d gerrymandering is constitutional

q e d to limit the amount of money that corporations can speak is UN constitutionall

* side note that - regarding matters central to its existence, the F E C no longer serves any purpose - there being no limits to corporate speech? what would be the point of limiting a human billionaire's speech?