Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 4
Or about ~25% of their total because those registrations are invalid.
https://www.judicialwatch.org/oregon-voter-rolls/Judicial Watch Lawsuit Settlement Causes Review and Removal of 800,000 Ineligible Voters from Oregon Voter RollsWashington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced a settlement in its federal lawsuit against Oregon election officials, which confirms 800,000 ineligible voter names are slated for review and removal from voter registration lists. The settlement requires state officials to produce detailed data and enforce federal voter roll clean-up procedures under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA).
Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit in October 2024, alleging Oregon failed to remove ineligible voters and seeking to enforce Section 8 of the NVRA after identifying widespread voter roll maintenance failures across dozens of counties (Judicial Watch, et al. v. The State of Oregon et al. (No. 6:24-cv-01783)).
In its complaint, Judicial Watch argued that Oregon’s voter rolls contain large numbers of old, inactive registrations; and that 29 of Oregon’s 36 counties removed few or no registrations as required by federal election law. Judicial Watch asserted that Oregon and 35 of its counties had overall registration rates exceeding 100%; and that Oregon had the highest known inactive registration rate of any state in the nation. In combination, all of these facts showed that Oregon was failing to remove inactive registrations as required by federal law.
No. of Recommendations: 21
So Oregon has to follow the federal law. Good.
Other states mentioned included Colorado and Kentucky (Kentucky had almost as many inactive accounts as Oregon).
Voter rolls including inactive accounts (people who have died, moved, etc.) should be cleaned up.
I read the whole article. It was all about removing inactive accounts.
If the accounts were inactive, then obviously there wasn’t any fraudulent voting involved. Makes the SAFE act look like complete bullshit.
But sure, the rolls should be cleaned up. Makes sense to me.
No. of Recommendations: 17
If the accounts were inactive, then obviously there wasn’t any fraudulent voting involved. Makes the SAFE act look like complete bullshit.
Yes, these are inactive accounts, which by definition means they have not voted in (at least) the past two elections.
Inactive account holder are ineligible to receive a ballot, either by mail or by in-person voting without going through the registration process again.
I’m happy that inactiuve accounts are being cleaned up, and also that it means that not a single one of them has voted inappropriately since being declared “inactive.”
Around 160,000 people leave Oregon each year by moving out of state, and around 40,000 die, sol roughly 200,000 per year are “inactive” because they’re not there. Another large cohort simply doesn’t vote very often, and so they become inactive by dint of not showing up.
Again: NO ILLEGAL VOTING NOTED.
No. of Recommendations: 13
Again: NO ILLEGAL VOTING NOTED.
Yes, but the story does make for good fodder among those with an intense commitment to misunderstanding or (like the initial poster) working with limited bandwidth.
Pete
No. of Recommendations: 3
or (like the initial poster) working with limited bandwidth.
Yet another lib who can’t debate and can only do this. The Ignore feature here makes posters like this not exist <click>.
Pro tip: boxed wine usually sucks. That seems like your speed.
No. of Recommendations: 4
Pro tip: boxed wine usually sucks.
Novel idea: Don't eat the box. Dipping it in the whine won't help solve your problem.
