MyDD :: Update on Ohio voter purge

Update on Ohio voter purge

by Jerome Armstrong, Sat Jul 24, 2004 at 10:49:07 AM EST

A week ago, Voter Purge in ground-zero Ohio was posted here, detailing the purge that resulted in a dramatic decrease from over 585,000 voters in 2000 to 519,048 today, in Hamilton County. Sam Seder, from Air America's Majority Report picked on the purge and asked Ohio's Jerry Springer what it was all about. Anyway, the response from the Hamilton County chair was bleak. The revised law provides in part that registration can be cancelled it you fail to respond to a notice by mail, and vote at least once every four consecutive years containing two federal elections, or update your registration. This law, which I've placed in the extended entry, was put into place since 1995, when Republican Voinovich was Governor. It seems a very strict and status-quo rule, but that's the way that a Republican-run state likes their laws.

§ 3503.21. Events resulting in cancellation of registration; procedures to verify or correct change of address.

(A) The registration of a registered elector shall be canceled upon the occurrence of any of the following:

(1) The filing by a registered elector of a written request with a board of elections, on a form prescribed by the secretary of state and signed by the elector, that his registration be canceled. The filing of such a request does not prohibit an otherwise qualified elector from reregistering to vote at any time.

(2) The filing of a notice of the death of the registered elector as provided in section 3503.18 of the Revised Code;

(3) The conviction of the registered elector of a felony under the laws of this state, any other state, or the United States as provided in section 2961.01 of the Revised Code;

(4) The adjudication of incompetency of the registered elector for the purpose of voting as provided in section 5122.301 [5122.30.1] of the Revised Code;

(5) The change of residence of the registered elector to a location outside the county of registration in accordance with division (B) of this section;

(6) The failure of the registered elector, after he has been mailed a confirmation notice, to do either of the following:

(a) Respond to such a notice and vote at least once during a period of four consecutive years, which period shall include two general federal elections;

(b) Update his registration and vote at least once during a period of four consecutive years, which period shall include two general federal elections.

(B) The secretary of state shall prescribe procedures to identify and cancel the registration in a prior county of residence of any registrant who changes his voting residence to a location outside his current county of registration. Any procedures prescribed in this division shall be uniform and nondiscriminatory, and shall comply with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The secretary of state may prescribe procedures under this division that include the use of the national change of address service provided by the United States postal system through its licensees. Any program so prescribed shall be completed not later than ninety days prior to the date of any primary or general election for federal office.

The registration of any elector identified as having changed his voting residence to a location outside his current county of registration shall not be canceled unless the registrant is sent a confirmation notice on a form prescribed by the secretary of state and the registrant fails to respond to the confirmation notice or otherwise update his registration and fails to vote in any election during the period of two federal elections subsequent to the mailing of the confirmation notice.

(D) Boards of elections shall send their voter registration lists to the secretary of state semiannually. In the first quarter of each odd-numbered year, the secretary of state shall send the information contained in these lists to the national change of address service described in division (B) of this section and request that service to provide the secretary of state with a list of any voters on the lists sent by the secretary of state who have moved within the last thirty-six months. The secretary of state shall transmit to each appropriate board of elections whatever lists he receives from that service. The board shall send a notice to each person on the list transmitted by the secretary of state requesting confirmation of the person's change of address, together with a postage prepaid, preaddressed return envelope containing a form on which the voter may verify or correct the change of address information.

HISTORY: 145 v S 300. Eff 1-1-95.

Tags: General 2008 (all tags)

Permalink :: 8 Comments :: Post a Comment

confirmation notice (none / 0)

Seems pretty clear from the law that they can only cancel a registration for not voting if they already sent a confirmation notice. (I.e. 4 years ago ...):

(6) The failure of the registered elector, after he has been mailed a confirmation notice, to do either of the following:

(a) Respond to such a notice and vote at least once during a period of four consecutive years, which period shall include two generalfederal elections;
[...]

But I suspect that they aren't following the law, just simply canceling registrations of voters who haven't voted for four years. Right?

So ... maybe someone should sue to re-instate all the registrations cancelled where people weren't sent "confirmation notice[s]" at least four years ago? You think?

by Anonymous Citizen on Sat Jul 24, 2004 at 11:03:34 AM EST

what the hell? (none / 0)

i can understand a state wanting to maintain current rolls and all, but i really feel that if you register to vote at least one, that registration should be good for as long as you live in a state.

in other words, i think this law is CRAP.

here in texas, i don't think we have any such law, but now i'm certainly going to go double check that. i know a few friends who don't vote very often, and i would hate to have them show up on nov2 and be denied the right to vote against george w bush.

Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!

by annatopia on Sat Jul 24, 2004 at 11:49:30 AM EST

typo (none / 0)

dammit, i should not post before my first cup of coffee.

one = once

Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!

by annatopia on Sat Jul 24, 2004 at 11:49:58 AM EST

How many voters are affected? (none / 0)

If I read the regulation correctly, it differs from what was in place during my Ohio days in one respect. It used to be that the names would be deleted after missing consecutive elections, including two presidential elections. That meant at least five years.

I also recall that in Cuyahoga County, at least, the names were never deleted. I worked with registration and GOTV efforts pretty much every election cycle. The names on the precinct lists were often way out of date.

Going through the lists and taking names off costs a lot more time and money than simply letting it go. I mean, how many people don't vote for more than four years then show up to do so?

I would be interested to know how many actual voters, as opposed to people who moved or died, are affected by this.

by James Earl on Sat Jul 24, 2004 at 02:39:27 PM EST

Any way to get the names (none / 0)

of the deleted and follow up contacting them?

Or at least to double check that they weren't canceled incorrectly...

I suspect that if we get this list, there will be evidence of selective cancelations...

For example....did they cancel everyone who qualified under the law or did they only cancel those likely to be Dem voters?

Someone needs to look into this...how about the group that did Florida?

by Nazgul35 on Sat Jul 24, 2004 at 02:56:21 PM EST

Re: Any way to get the names (none / 0)

Yes, you can get the names, here's the message on that:

...recently raised this question with our Board staff and determined that we can provide a list of who had their voter registration cancelled if that becomes an issue. There is no good way of accurately identifying the race of voters whose registration was cancelled since racial data isn't kept by the board. It could roughly be done by comparing the precinct in which the cancelled electors lived with census data, since our precincts now all follow census lines.

by Jerome Armstrong on Sat Jul 24, 2004 at 03:16:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Update on Ohio voter purge (none / 0)

""William Jefferson Clinton will be speaking live via videoconference from the convention with workers from the Timken Company on Monday night."

Wow, great move.

by Jerome Armstrong on Sat Jul 24, 2004 at 03:22:29 PM EST

Re: Update on Ohio voter purge (none / 0)

The law in California used to be that if you missed a major (presidential) election, you'd be dropped from the voter lists. That, at least, is how it was explained to me when I was in high school (1969-1973), and when I was a voter registrar (1973-1975). Whether or not the counties were very scrupulous about doing this, I do not know. Whether or not the law had any or many other fine points, I don't know, but I do know that there was no provision for sending out a card or otherwise notifying you about it beforehand.

And, of course, I don't know if the law has been changed in the intervening years.

Point is, Democrats were even then very competitive in California (albeit, not in presidential elections for a number of cycles). Today they just dominate the state. I'm really not sure that such a purge is really such bad news for Democrats. It certainly does remove those who've died, and those who've moved and re-registered elsewhere (in or out of state). It also removes people who were registered once -- perhaps button-holed by an enthusiastic registrar -- but have never voted and likely never will.

This isn't to suggest that, in tight races where the results come down (as they sometimes do) to a few dozen, or few hundred, votes, that the GOP wouldn't benefit. Probably they would. But there ARE legitimate reasons for a state to clean up its voter lists on a regular basis, and we progressives shouldn't deny that just because it's inconvenient.

What I am far more interested in are situations where "cleaning up" the lists becomes an excuse and cover for GOP dirty tricks, removing legitimate Democratic voters in a naked, anti-democractic effort at a power grab. THAT was the story from Florida (in 2000 and, as the recent opening of their "felons" list showed, in 2004 as well). So the question is: is there anything intrinsic about the Ohio law that would make it UNFAIRLY target Democrats? Is there anything in its administration that targets Democrats?

-- Roger Keeling

by Anonymous Citizen on Sun Jul 25, 2004 at 11:57:09 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.