Kerby Anderson

With another set of elections on the horizon, it is time to consider how to clean up the voter rolls. As I’ve mentioned in previous commentaries, we do have a problem. A report that came out in September found that there are 248 counties in this country that have more names on their voter rolls than the total number of people of voting age in those counties at the time of the 2016 election. Last month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a case from Ohio that has implemented what I would think is a common-sense approach to cleaning up the voter rolls. The state attempts (over a four year period) to contact voters if they have failed to vote in the last few elections. If they respond to any of the notices or vote even once during that period of time, they remain registered. They are only removed if they failed to vote over six years and failed to respond to any mailing. Although that seems like basic common sense, the plaintiffs in the case argued that they shouldn’t be penalized for not voting (perhaps because they don’t like a candidate). They also point to the 1993 National Voter Registration Act (often called the “motor voter” law) that prohibits canceling registrations solely for not voting. But the same federal law also allows names to be removed from the rolls when a voter does not respond to mailings from the state. I have a question for the critics. If missing three consecutive election cycles and ignoring the various mailings from Ohio is not sufficient for removal from the rolls, what should be the standard? Hopefully some of the justices who want to strike down this state procedure will have a suggestion. The voter rolls in a number of counties and states are inaccurate. They are filled with people who have moved, who are deceased, or have duplicate registrations. There is too much potential for mischief unless we clean up the voter rolls.