When you talk to a Democrat about voter fraud, they seem to go deaf at the least, and show total incomprehension at the best. The clearing of voter roles has become a trigger issue for the left. It is so much an issue that they have lost track of who did what to whom and when. In this case, the Washington Post, in its usual knee-jerk, non-researched article, wound up slamming an Obama-era voter fraud measure. Read and enjoy.
As Written by TIFFANY BATES & HANS A. VON SPAKOVSKY for the National Review:
Can a state ensure that its voter rolls aren’t filled with non-residents and dead people who shouldn’t be registered to vote? The Left doesn’t think so, but the U.S. Department of Justice answered yes recently when it filed an amicus brief in Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute. The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case when it starts its new term this fall.
The Department of Justice is supporting Ohio in its attempts to keep its voter rolls accurate and up to date. Federal law requires states to do so under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). Over at the Washington Post, Sari Horwitz highlights the supposedly “radical change in philosophy from the previous Justice Department.” But look at the history of federal enforcement of the NVRA: It was under Obama that the Justice Department changed its position on the law, something you would never know from reading the Post story.
This case involves Ohio’s unremarkable process for removing ineligible voters from the rolls. To individuals who haven’t voted in two years, the state will send a confirmation notice, asking if they still live at their registered address. If the individual doesn’t return the notice and doesn’t vote for an additional four years, Ohio will remove them from the rolls.
Seems pretty sensible and straightforward. But in a sad example of statutory
THERE IS MORE HERE: