Someone thinks there may be a way to challenge this law constitutionally, and this is your cite that people don’t know what the law currently is? Are you serious?
I look forward to your conducting similarly astute legal analysis of challenges to gun control measures.
Sure. A forthright approach, such as you describe — I get that.
But the approach in this thread is to suggest that these kinds of actions are already illegal. This is not part of the process. And when someone points out that they are not already illegal, the affronted response is that a right is something the government can’t take away, thus palming the question of illegalities and declaring it settled, without explicitly saying it’s illegal.
Because everyone wants to gain the rhetorical advantage of using language that suggests illegality without saying it. And I am here to rain on that rhetor’s trick.
Not enough people in Georgia agree with you. So you don’t get to enact you law in Georgia. California will undoubtably use its robust budget surplus to send Uber rides to every voter. That’s good for them.
See? I’m fine with either answer. Your side can only accept legitimacy in results you favor.
That’s really not a fair criticism. Why switch to the general when the person you are engaging hasn’t claimed adherance to a side or made the rhetorical.argumant you are attacking? That’s an unpersuasive tactic.
For me, I think the rules are being followed and the rules are also sub optimal. They should be changed and this could be a catalyst. I also don’t think it’s as big a deal as it’s being made out to be. These clearly aren’t active voters so the impact as applied is not likely to be huge. Though the previous small vote margin undercuts that.
I don’t think it’s very difficult at all to meet the criteria to stay on the voter roll so I have little sympathy there.
Then, really, they had no choice, those poor Republican dears! Their hands were tied, it’s the law! Of course they were deeply saddened that the law demanded that they take an unjust amount of power, but what could they do? Hell, they sent postcards!
Someone should send them thoughts and prayers. I’d do it, but the line is always busy.
I go out of my way in the OP to clarify that this is not what is happening, and people have repeatedly make it clear that this is not what they’re saying. Why do you insist that this must be the case despite that?
So in other words, if you invent a meaning we’ve explicitly rejected and nobody has advocated, it’s rhetorically advantageous to you.
How is this not accusing us of lying, exactly?
A couple of notes from a very recent Axios which inspires head scratching. The first…
What? It has to match two different sets of data? That, presumably, match each other? What is the point, if they already match each other. What happens when the applicants data matches one but not the other. Not an “exact match”, according to a strict interpretation of Da Rules.
And this, which is simply confusing…
Huh? People who are not registered to vote can vote just the same as registered voters, if they have the pertinent ID? Is this an official diktat from the Spokeswoman Almighty, and can be relied upon to have the force of law? They don’t let you vote because you’re not registered to vote, you just show them the quote from the spokeswoman? Clearly, or at least hopefully, not. Someone authorized her to say that.
Who? And, of course, why?
Curiouser and curiouser, said Alice. Busy, busy, busy, said Bokonon.
https://www.axios.com/civil-rights-groups-sue-georgia-over-53k-voter-registrations-on-hold-346f8bdc-2ffe-4235-94c9-261a92502535.html
Last I check, being stupid and lazy didn’t mean you got your rights suspended.
I mean, this situation in georgia literally shows that it does have that effect. The debate is whether it should have that effect, and also whether more harm is done by suspending those rights than by not purging the rolls at all.
There are other options, of course, elections can be freely and fairly held without electoral rolls, this is very common in newly democratic countries. But if you’re going to have an electoral roll, it needs to be kept up to date, and it is partly the responsibility of the individual to do their part, by ensuring they notify the relevant authority when they change address, and reply to official communications. Those are not onerous requirements.
I live in a newly* democratic country and we do all the things you say about having an electoral role and keeping it up to date and having a measure of individual responsibility.
But, there is also a reciprocal responsibility on the part of the electoral authority. And it is that it does everything within its power to enable people to vote. So in the run up to every election there is a media blitz reminding people to register, reminding people to *confirm *that they are registered and making it easy to do so. Well easy-ish, I don’t get a postcard I have to go to a physical polling station and present my ID to get on the voter role. But I am well aware of this, everybody is well aware of this, and nothing is done in secret or in a half-arsed way designed to affect the voting results.
*24 years and counting
By “illegal”, do you mean “unconstitutional”? If that’s what you mean, of course that’s part of the process. AIUI, you 100% support that part of the process when it comes to dismantling gun control laws.
If by “illegal” you mean something “against statute,” I’m not sure where you’re getting that in this thread; certainly it’s not in the OP, nor is it in the overwhelming majority of posts.
Confirmation bias, though? I think you came into the thread expecting to find it, ready to type that dismissive post even before you’d read the thread. Am I right?
Suppose a person has not owned a gun in a long time, or perhaps ever; should their ability to own a gun be severely curtailed or cut off?
The circumstances in both are similar, true.
There is a lot of overlap between people who don’t vote, don’t read their mail, don’t watch the news, don’t know the multiple ways available to re-register, and didn’t realize that I need to notify my county of a change of address, and those who are SOL. And not just in Georgia.
It has that effect, certainly. My point is, so fucking what? The requirements are not particularly severe or onerous. Most people manage. The notion that it is no fair that these folks should have to do what everybody else does seems out of place to me.
“The dog ate my homework” didn’t work in middle school. I see no reason why it should work in Georgia.
I assume you saw HurricaneDitka’s posts.
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan, is Kayaker lazy or stupid? According to you, he’s at least one. So which is it?
I have no intention of breaking the rule against insults outside the Pit, so don’t bother.
Regards,
Shodan
Well clearly it’s one or the other. You think someone who doesn’t read all their mail is either stupid or lazy. Well, here we have members on thos forum who don’t, so I’m asking - lazy or stupid?
Or is it possible that what they did (not carefully examining every piece of direct mail they get before chucking it) was both entirely reasonable and something most people do for reasons already outlined?
Either way, you seem convinced they’re either lazy or stupid, and I’d appreciate knowing which - in the pit, if need be. 
For those of us that voting is a quick and easy 5 minute stop within 5 minutes drive of our houses, sure.
There are those who may have a harder time voting, not having a polling place near them, or having to wait in long lines.
If the last time that someone was inspired enough to go through the rather difficult task of voting was for Obama in 2012, and didn’t turn out for midterms, and wasn’t inspired enough by Clinton to make the trip, they would be being purged now.
That’s not an inactive voter, that’s just a person who hasn’t voted for a bit. Unless we pass a law requiring mandatory voting, and having disenfranchisement as a penalty for non-compliance (and I would strongly advocate against such a law), then the fact that they haven’t voted in a while should have no bearing on whether they can vote in the future.
Tell you what, if you haven’t bought a gun in a few years, then you aren’t an active gun buyer, so the impact of having your right to buy a gun taken away is not likely to be huge. I don’t think that it would be that difficult to stay on the gun buyer rolls, so I have little sympathy there.
I was thinking about countries that have their first free elections, and things like inking thumbs to ensure people only vote once. You are absolutely right about the responsibility of the government to ensure people know when and how to register.
I actually wonder if the system of automatically remaining registered under most circumstances works against this, as if you have to reregister every year, for example, it will be something normal you do without thinking, whereas if it happens irregularly after missing a few elections, it’s more unexpected.
I’m not sure that’s a good analogy, as there’s no issue with people owning more than one gun, buying guns in more than one place, and so on.
However, if there were a list of people who own guns, including their address - as some people would no doubt advocate, and consider a reasonable restriction - then at some point that register would need to be updated, to ensure the addresses are correct, and to reduce the chance of people buying guns in someone else’s name to avoid registration.
As it is, certain groups of people may not vote, and different (but overlapping) groups may not vote. Children and criminals being the most obvious ones. So, neither right is unlimited, and it’s reasonable to take some steps to ensure the limitations are followed.
Ultimately, it depends on whether you think accurately maintained list of voters or gun owners are necessary. If so, in either case, you will require individuals to make some personal effort to remain on these lists, and some people will, whether through laziness, ignorance, or accident, fall off those lists. I suppose there’s always the option of such thorough government monitoring of every individual’s actions and movements that it wouldn’t be necessary, but that would come with, to put it mildly, a few issues of its own.
With tens of thousands of voters removed from the rolls, I don’t think it’s reasonable to suggest that we have any idea what the people of Georgia think about this at all, either now or after the election.
“Distrust in the outcome” indeed.
The passage of the law predates their removal from the rolls.