SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Guardian reports:
Georgia secretary of state and gubernatorial candidate Brian Kemp improperly purged more than 340,000 voters from the state's registration rolls, an investigation charges.
Greg Palast, a journalist and the director of the Palast Investigative Fund, said an analysis he commissioned found 340,134 voters were removed from the rolls on the grounds that they had moved - but they actually still live at the address where they are registered.
"Their registration is cancelled. Not pending, not inactive – cancelled. If they show up to vote on 6 November, they will not be allowed to vote. That's wrong," Palast told reporters on a call on Friday. "We can prove they're still there. They should be allowed to vote."
[...] Palast and the Georgia Coalition for the People's Agenda filed a lawsuit against Kemp on Friday to force him to release additional records related to the state's removal of voters.
Under Georgia procedures, registered voters who have not cast ballots for three years are sent a notice asking them to confirm they still live at their address. If they don't return it, they are marked inactive. If they don't vote for two more general elections after that, they are removed from the rolls.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 23 2018, @11:30PM (1 child)
You are an idiot then. It may be reasonable to expect someone won't vote after a pattern of not voting, but removing their ability to do so? Yeaaah, cluebat incoming.
3 years isn't even one presidential election, what a useless shitty argument that doesn't even pass its own bullshit sniff test.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 24 2018, @04:00AM
You seem to have misread the article.
This process didn't disenfranchise anyone. It finally, after several attempts at clarification, removed an active registration. Nothing whatsoever prevents someone from showing up and casting a provisional ballot, or registering again.
We could have an argument about whether felons should be disenfranchised, and if so for how long, but that's not what happened here.
The other side of the coin is that not cleaning up the list results in all sorts of problems with which computer scientists should be familiar.
As other posters pointed out, his department didn't (because I guarantee he didn't do this himself) remove a particularly large number of people - it was just another year in the calendar, as far as they were concerned. It's only now that the other side thinks that they can get 0.01% more of the vote by kicking up an artificial fuss that it's even a story.