Lib­er­als, small-d democrats should de­bate mer­its of manda­tory vot­ing

New Haven Register (New Haven, CT) - - LOCAL NEWS - By John Stoehr JOHN STOEHR

Crit­i­cal re­ac­tion to the U.S. Supreme Court’s rul­ing Mon­day was not what I hoped for. The op­po­site, in fact. In­stead of re­think­ing ways to solve the prob­lem, many lib­er­als are dou­bling down, per­haps be­cause they don’t know what the prob­lem is.

The Supreme Court de­cided, in a 5-4 con­ser­va­tive rul­ing, to up­hold an Ohio law that erases names from voter rolls if reg­is­trants have not voted dur­ing a cer­tain pe­riod of time. “Af­ter skip­ping a sin­gle fed­eral elec­tion cy­cle, vot­ers are sent a no­tice,” ac­cord­ing to the Times’ Adam Lip­tak. “If they fail to re­spond and do not vote in the next four years, their names are purged from the rolls.”

COM­MEN­TARY

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.