Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

SCOTUS rules VA can continue its limited voter roll purge

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by OklahomaGator, Oct 30, 2024 at 10:08 AM.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. OklahomaGator

    OklahomaGator Jedi Administrator Moderator VIP Member

    122,906
    163,820
    116,973
    Apr 3, 2007
    No article yet, just say it reported on the news but VA can continue it's purge of individual voters who indicated they were not US Citizens from their voter rolls.

    It only makes sense to me, it is not a wide purge, just isolated.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Disagree Bacon! Disagree Bacon! x 1
  2. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    15,790
    2,036
    1,718
    Dec 9, 2010
    How much Type I error (i.e., identification as a non-citizen when somebody actually is a citizen) do you think makes sense?

    https://www.npr.org/2024/10/29/nx-s1-5169204/virginia-noncitizen-voter-purge

    From the article, here are the stats from another similar program in Alabama.

    So out of, being generous here, 2,084 "suspected" non-citizens, the court identified 2,074 citizens and, at most, 10 non-citizens. Do you think that is a reasonable error rate?
     
    • Best Post Ever Best Post Ever x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
  3. gator95

    gator95 GC Hall of Fame

    7,565
    807
    2,013
    Apr 3, 2007
    Good. Virginia can continue to enforce a law on the books since 2006 signed by a dem.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. AndyGator

    AndyGator VIP Member

    3,597
    351
    338
    Apr 10, 2007
    I don't think Republicans care as long as they get rid of Dem voters.
     
    • Agree Agree x 5
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Best Post Ever Best Post Ever x 1
  5. rtgator

    rtgator Premium Member

    7,349
    855
    458
    Apr 3, 2007
    Exactly right! When have they EVER come down on the side of the electorate?
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  6. surfn1080

    surfn1080 Premium Member

    2,031
    309
    328
    Sep 26, 2008
    How this even needed a Supreme Court ruling will always baffle me.

    Saw something earlier today that a NV court ruled they must count mail-in ballots received no later than 5 PM the third day following the election even if the postmark date cannot be determined. Insane...
     
  7. gatorchamps960608

    gatorchamps960608 GC Hall of Fame

    4,507
    940
    2,463
    Jul 4, 2020
    You're right for once. It's clearly in violation of the "too late" 90 days from an election law but that means nothing to this right wing politics first SCOTUS.
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. gaterzfan

    gaterzfan GC Hall of Fame

    1,738
    331
    1,698
    Feb 6, 2020
    I don’t understand why American citizens would not want the voter registration database scrubbed of illegals, dead, and non-voters. I guess if you’re planning to commit election fraud having those names as registered voters helps in that endeavor.
     
    • Agree Agree x 5
    • Like Like x 1
    • Disagree Bacon! Disagree Bacon! x 1
  9. surfn1080

    surfn1080 Premium Member

    2,031
    309
    328
    Sep 26, 2008
    The rule was not designed to protect those who are NOT US citizens. Try again.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  10. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    15,790
    2,036
    1,718
    Dec 9, 2010
    Okay, let me directly ask you the question everybody is avoiding:

    How much Type I error (i.e., identification as a non-citizen when somebody actually is a citizen) do you think makes sense?

    Given that Alabama apparently (at best) identified 10 non-citizens correctly while identifying and trying to cancel the registration of 2,074 citizens, what is the acceptable error rate? Apparently, it is higher than 99.5%. So what level is acceptable to you for errors? 99.7%? 99.9%?
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2024 at 11:55 AM
    • Dislike x 1
    • Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
    • Funny x 1
    • Optimistic x 1
    • Off-topic x 1
  11. gatorchamps960608

    gatorchamps960608 GC Hall of Fame

    4,507
    940
    2,463
    Jul 4, 2020
    There's no guarantee citizens won't be purged also.

    This is election interference. There is no reason this action couldn't have taken place in July.
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Bacon! Disagree Bacon! x 1
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
  12. citygator

    citygator VIP Member

    11,182
    2,509
    3,303
    Apr 3, 2007
    Charlotte
    I don’t think you understand the argument and haven’t answered the simple question asked above.
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  13. VAg8r1

    VAg8r1 GC Hall of Fame

    20,703
    1,704
    1,763
    Apr 8, 2007
    There was an article on the subject in the Washington Post when Youngkin began the purge several weeks ago. A review of the voters purged indicated that the overwhelming majority were in fact US citizens who had failed to check the appropriate box on their mail registration forms or in some cases failed to sign the forms. They weren't noncitizens who illegally registered to vote.
     
    • Informative Informative x 3
    • Like Like x 1
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  14. Gator40

    Gator40 Avada Kedavra

    14,023
    448
    488
    Apr 3, 2007
    This is inaccurate and misleading. The original law was never challenged, it was Republican governor Youngkin's executive order signed August 7th. It expanded the data collection from monthly to daily and was signed within the so-called 90 day "quiet period" of the National Voter Registration Act where governor's can't change laws to remove ineligible voters running up to an election.

    Changing and expanding the data collection before the election was the reason for the challenge. The 2006 law as written would have stayed in place.

    Please be more accurate.
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2024 at 12:33 PM
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  15. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    15,790
    2,036
    1,718
    Dec 9, 2010
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  16. gator95

    gator95 GC Hall of Fame

    7,565
    807
    2,013
    Apr 3, 2007
    • Like Like x 1
  17. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    15,790
    2,036
    1,718
    Dec 9, 2010
    Can you point out in the article where it says that she gets to vote after being purged from the rolls? She isn't registered to vote any longer, and you need to be registered to vote.
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
  18. gatorchamps960608

    gatorchamps960608 GC Hall of Fame

    4,507
    940
    2,463
    Jul 4, 2020
    I believe I read Virginia has same-day voter registration so she should be able to get back on the rolls.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. surfn1080

    surfn1080 Premium Member

    2,031
    309
    328
    Sep 26, 2008
    Virginia specifically said they are only removing those who have self-identified as a noncitizen.

    There is a difference between a state removing suspected noncitizens vs a state removing citizens who have self-identified as a citizen.

    You don't think we need to take measures considering the millions of migrants that have entered our country in the last 3.5 years? Clearly, many noncitizens have registered to vote otherwise this wouldn't be coming up.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  20. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    15,790
    2,036
    1,718
    Dec 9, 2010
    Well, if the government says so. But how did the prople indicate that, specifically? Did the government send somebody to their house?
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.