Tens of thousands of voters incorrectly purged from voter rolls

Keep one thing in mind when you read what is sure to be a deluge of stories about the tens of thousands of legal voters purged from the voter rolls because of minor discrepancies, arbitrary rules, and shoddy databases: High turnout favors Democrats.

Ridiculously, federal law gives states the power to set their own criteria for voting in national elections. Not that states go out of their way to tell the public what the rules are. Have you ever seen a PSA about how not to disenfranchise yourself with the inconsistent use of a middle initial? 

People whose Social Security records say "Robert" and whose driver's licenses say "Bob" may or may not be disqualified, depending on the whims of the states they live in.

Joe the Plumber is one of up to 200,000 Ohioans whose votes may not be counted. His surname is misspelled "Worzelbacher" instead of "Wurzelbacher." Whatever else he's confused about, it's unlikely that Joe misspelled his own name. So if he's not allowed to vote, he's been disenfranchised by some clerk's typo.

People like Joe will be allowed to cast provisional ballots, but there's no guarantee those votes will be counted. Again, it depends on state rules and the relative pushiness of party lawyers.

Comments

[parse]

Ridiculously, federal law gives states the power to set their own criteria for voting in national elections.

Why is it ridiculous to give states the power to set their own criteria for voting in national elections? It strikes me as a question about which reasonable people might differ; that is, neither position is ridiculous.

[Eric Jaffa]

The "Think Progress" article is from Thursday.

It is about a federal court agreeing with the "Ohio Republican Party" that people should be flagged if there is a mismatch between how their names are spelled in two databases.

Yesterday, the US Supreme Court overturned that ruling (on the grounds that the "Ohio Republican Party" probably doesn't have a right to sue under HAVA.)

Joe the Plumber can vote.

[cfrost]

The October 13, ‘08 New Yorker has an article about the history of elections in the U.S. As the article describes, the mechanics are largely left to the states:

The Constitution, drafted in 1787, left the conduct of elections up to the states: “The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations.” Further than this limited federal oversight the framers would not go. And even this needed James Madison’s insistence, during the Constitutional Convention, that “it was impossible to foresee all the abuses” that states might make of unimpeded power over the conduct of elections.