The U.S. Supreme Court announced a stunning decision on an exsiting controversial voting policy in Ohio. The sharply divided court’s final decision was 5-4 in the so-called "use it or lose it" policy known better as the supplemental process.
In a decision indicative of a changing high court and the political environment of the country, the decision will not be popular with the Democratic Party.
It demands the tidying of voter rolls in that state.
The case originally came about due to the chaotic nature and rampant fraud within Ohio’s state voting. The government literally had to step in to stop the criminality. The court’s decision leaves the state no choice but to immediately update and modernize voter rolls.
The landmark voter case found the "supplemental process," better known as "use it or lose it," not in violation of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).
That law bars states from removing names of people from the voter rolls for failing to vote.
The court’s decision was predictable; five conservative justices voted in the majority, with the court’s four liberals dissenting. It is a classic case of liberals looking to register everyone and the kitchen sink to the voter rolls while the conservatives seek willing participants; hopefully educated in the voting process.
But the left is now feeling the Trump effect even without the late conservative Justice Scalia on the court. Shortly before the Ohio ruling, the court ruled against the gay couple forcing a baker to make their wedding cake.
The supplemental process works like this. Voters who have not voted in two years are flagged and sent a confirmation notice. Voters who then fail to respond to the notice and vote within the next two years are removed from the rolls.
It's that simple.
But to the opposition that wants as many people as possible to be eligible to vote, it’s a catastrophe. Such a ruling makes the voter more responsible and accountable in the voting process. It also thins the rolls of voters who have changed their residence.
Critics said the policy violated the Failure-to-Vote Clause of the NVRA. The argument was using a person’s failure to vote twice over as the trigger for sending a notice. If they did not comply, then they were removed.
The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Samuel Alito. His contention was the law in no way violated any provision of the NRVA. "The notice in question here warns recipients that unless they take the simple and easy step of mailing back the pre-addressed, postage prepaid card, or take the equally easy step of updating their information online, their names may be removed from the voting rolls if they do not vote during the next four years," he wrote. "It was Congress’s judgment that a reasonable person with an interest in voting is not likely to ignore notice of this sort."
In other words, a great day for conservatives. It is yet another small societal step of a changing America since the inauguration of Donald J. Trump.
Dwight L. Schwab, Jr. is an award-winning national political and foreign affairs columnist and published author. He has spent over 35 years in the publishing industry. His long-running articles include many years at Examiner.com and currently Newsblaze.com. Dwight is an author of two highly acclaimed books, "Redistribution of Common Sense - Selected Commentaries on the Obama Administration 2009-2014" and "The Game Changer - America's Most Stunning Election in History." He is a native of Portland, Oregon, a journalism graduate from the University of Oregon, and a resident of the SF Bay Area. To read more of his reports — Click Here Now.
© 2021 Newsmax. All rights reserved.