- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 8/28/17 at 4:24 pm to BamaFan365
quote:That's my issue. The registration statistics are provided, and they do not correspond to percentages even close to what JW is noting, not the 112% let alone the 144%.
This what JW claims they were told by a LA County officials. I didn't see where they showed proof of this.
If anything, 5.26 million is lower than expected given the population.
Posted on 8/28/17 at 4:34 pm to buckeye_vol
I guess we will have to wait on the written response from California or JW will have to explain the numbers during litigation
Posted on 8/28/17 at 4:46 pm to BamaFan365
quote:I think I found the issue:
I guess we will have to wait on the written response from California or JW will have to explain the numbers during litigation
Real fake new: California voting rolls riddled with ineligible voters
quote:
So how did Judicial Watch come up with 11 counties having more than 100 percent of their eligible populations on the voter rolls. It added the counties’ “inactive voters” – names of those who have voted sometime in the past but have been dropped from current registration rolls – and carelessly branded them as registered voters.
quote:
However, those inactive voters are just names, now about 5 million statewide, and any that seek to actually vote again must prove their eligibility and, in effect, re-register. Most are no longer living in the counties where they had once voted, which explains why adding registered voters and inactive voters together could total more than 100 percent.
quote:So it seems that JW's claims are deceiving, and given how they had to come up with the figures, it seems intentional.
“They are using bad math and flawed methodology,” Padilla said in a statement, adding that maintaining the inactive voter files complies with federal voting laws to avoid eligible citizens from being administratively disallowed from voting.
I don't know why they would do that given the the information that is available to the public, but it really calls their integrity into question.
This post was edited on 8/28/17 at 4:54 pm
Posted on 8/28/17 at 5:08 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
However, those inactive voters are just names, now about 5 million statewide, and any that seek to actually vote again must prove their eligibility and, in effect, re-register.
That's incorrect. All that have to do is confirm their residency at the polling station and they are eligible to vote
sos.ca.gov
quote:
What is important to keep in mind is that "inactive" voters under the California Elections Code and the NVRA are registered voters, eligible to vote in an election, provided the voter confirms residency at the polling place.
eta: I don't know why they would do that given the the information that is available to the public, but it really calls their integrity into question.
This post was edited on 8/28/17 at 5:13 pm
Posted on 8/28/17 at 5:15 pm to BamaFan365
quote:That's exactly what they're saying. They state assumes that are no longer at said address, but doesn't take them off in case there was an error. Most likely they aren't truly active voters so the point is moot. Considering them actively registered voters is deceiving.
That's incorrect. All that have to do is confirm their residency at the polling station and they are eligible to vote
It's just like those stories of multiple Trump associates who were registered in multiple states. Like most people, when they move that don't usually call up and say take me off the voter roles. So States have to go through a process to unregister them, just in case the is an error. But I think it makes sense to move them to inactive role first.
This post was edited on 8/28/17 at 5:17 pm
Posted on 8/28/17 at 5:24 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
So States have to go through a process to unregister them, just in case the is an error. But I think it makes sense to move them to inactive role first.
But they are still registered voters just like JW says they are and they haven't been unregistered yet. Getting them purged exactly what JW is trying to get done.
This post was edited on 8/28/17 at 5:26 pm
Posted on 8/28/17 at 5:29 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
That's not what they claimed. I just read the article. They claimed, and it was confirmed by the Illinois Registrar, that in many counties there were more votes cast than eligible voters.
This wasn't even a complex article. Your reading comprehension skills are incredibly lackluster.
Nah, he's just very dishonest because it's his perception that these types of lies furthers the leftist agenda.
Posted on 8/28/17 at 5:31 pm to BamaFan365
quote:But California has decided to place them as inactive voters, removed from the active roll, are not mailed CA's extensive election information, and are required to reverify their address in person.
But they are still registered voters just like JW says they are and they haven't been unregistered yet. Getting them purged exactly what JW is trying to get done.
They are basically unregistered, but given an easier process to re-register if there was a clerical or posting error.
I don't see why this would an issue, and why JW wouldn't at least specify the differences.
Posted on 8/28/17 at 5:40 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
are required to reverify their address in person.
Yes, they can do they when they go vote.
quote:
They are basically unregistered, but given an easier process to re-register if there was a clerical or posting error.
From my link earlier
quote:
What is important to keep in mind is that "inactive" voters under the California Elections Code and the NVRA are registered voters
eta: No they are not basically unregistered according to California law
This post was edited on 8/28/17 at 5:45 pm
Posted on 8/28/17 at 6:09 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:Yes they did. That is an entirely different claim than what CelticDog erroneously noted. Hence no link.
They claimed that 11 counties had more registered voters than eligible voters.
JW cites investigative revelations differing from formal county claims. If the county claims are accurate, JW does not have a case. However, JW is a solid organization. JW has threatened suit. That tells me at a minimum something may be amiss.
It should tell you the same thing.
Posted on 8/28/17 at 6:38 pm to BamaFan365
quote:They follow the same procedure as specified the NVRA. They inform voters they will be removed from eligible voter list:
eta: No they are not basically unregistered according to California law
quote:
If the voter does not return the postcard and does not vote in the following two federal elections, then the voter registration may be cancelled.
quote:California law apparently doesn't makes this as permitted action not a mandatory removal.
While the NVRA requires that the voter be informed that his or her name will be removed from the list of eligible voters, the NVRA does not specifically require removal. It simply provides that the notice and waiting period procedure outlined above must be followed before removal. Likewise, California law makes removal in this instance permissive rather than mandatory.
And even if you only consider the active voters, LA County for example had about 3.29 million votes, which is only 62.5% of the active voter list and 41.7% of the 18 and over population. That's pretty low turnout.
So JW is just doing this all for show, and they could have at least indicated that they aggregated active and inactive voters, but that isn't so newsworthy.
Posted on 8/28/17 at 6:55 pm to buckeye_vol
JW is trying to make sure that the voter rolls are purged as required by law. They are claiming that California is not following the law. If JW is showing inactive voters as registered voters, they are not wrong because according to California law they are.
Posted on 8/28/17 at 7:06 pm to BamaFan365
quote:The law specifies what is required to remove a person; it doesn't make the removal mandatory.
JW is trying to make sure that the voter rolls are purged as required by law.
They are required to maintain their active roles, but the purpose of the NVRA was to ensure states provide ample opportunity to register and protected registering by ensuring states didn't purge voters without following a strict set of guidelines.
California is following the letter and the spirit of the law.
Posted on 8/28/17 at 7:13 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
California is following the letter and the spirit of the law
We'll see
Posted on 8/28/17 at 7:25 pm to BamaFan365
quote:Sure. But if JW was being honest, they would have indicated that they addressing their concerns of inactive rolls, rather than going for a click bait worthy headline.
We'll see
Maybe there is a legal issue that needs settled regarding inactive voters and mandatory purging, but a serious inquiry would have noted this.
But there is a similar case being heard by the SCOTUS in the next term.
Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute
It's a essentially the opposite situation of the California law, where Ohio was purging inactive voters, and the appeals court said it was in violation of the NVRA. JW is supporting the Ohio law though.
So based in this California seems to be following the procedures correctly, especially if SCOTUS upholds the decisio. But even if SCOTUS rules otherwise, it probably wouldn't even impact CA's procedures.
This post was edited on 8/28/17 at 7:29 pm
Posted on 8/29/17 at 5:04 pm to buckeye_vol
and still no OP link?
Posted on 8/29/17 at 5:04 pm to NC_Tigah
nor any condemnation of it by you?
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News