North Carolina removes 747,000 from voter rolls, citing ineligibility

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: The Hill

09/26/24 1:50 PM ET


North Carolina’s State Board of Elections has removed 747,000 people from its list of registered voters within the last 20 months, officials announced Thursday in a press release.

The State Board of Elections in the release said the majority of those stripped from the rolls were deemed ineligible to be registered because they had moved within the state and did not register their new address, or because they did not participate in the past two federal elections, prompting an inactive status.

Other reasons for removal included death, felony convictions, out-of-state moves and personal requests for removal, the board said.

North Carolina is one of seven swing states likely to decide the presidential election between Vice President Harris and former President Trump. Only one Democrat this century, former President Obama in 2008, has won the state in a presidential contest, but Harris has been polling close to Trump.

Read more: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4901476-north-carolina-purges-747k-voters/

[OAITW r.2.0]

1. This is how you steal elections and kill democracy. One Party Rule, Baby!

Welcome to vision of a new American - Republican future.

[stopdiggin]

2. this is fairly standard stuff

with almost every state winnowing out voter rolls over time? Devil is in the details of course - and I'm not familiar with NC specifics - but none of what is given here as 'reason for removal' sounds particularly non-standard or egregious? People that have not voted in several past elections - moved and failed .. ?

[littlemissmartypants]

10. It certainly is! And I'm sick to death of people on here

Bad mouthing NC Board of Elections procedures when they know nothing about them and don't seem to care to learn.

Things are bad enough with the Republicans and all of their attacks and conspiracy theories.

I thought DUers were smarter. Oh, well. Live and learn.

I'd love to know how many people would take jobs where you're trying to help them out when suddenly you have to work in a place with layers of physical high security and behind bulletproof glass...

People don't seem to understand what goes into helping them vote. What's worse is they don't seem to want to learn but are quick to complain about it and blame the helpers.

I'm wondering if they really even vote to start with...?

[stopdiggin]

13. we have sold ourselves the 'election fiddling' scenario so well

that virtually every story - whether featuring nefarious elements or not - is viewed through that lens. And it seems to me that that is neither helpful - nor particularly informed.

Once again - I can't speak to the specifics here, because I'm just not up to speed on NC law. But nothing mentioned here so far sounds so very different from what I had understood to be fairly common practice. Are we claiming that these are new regulations and standards, recently put in place?
- - - - - - - - -

[littlemissmartypants]

16. Imo, it's just more DU clickbait.

It appears more and more posters are just working for a spot on the Greatest page.

Much more than anything else, Iike being helpful or truthfully, fully informative without bias or sensationalism.

[LeftInTX]

17. I'm in Texas and same thing.

It doesn't help that Abbott words it like it has happened recently, but it has been within the last two years. "Texas removes 1.2 million voters!". DU response: "What is the political party of the voters?" "I bet they're all brown people".
Most of them have moved or died. Some have been convicted of felonies.

6,500 were due to suspected US citizenship. The 6,500 are concerning and ACLU, LWV etc are taking legal action. So, this is concerning, but it's only about 1% of those removed.

[Bengus81]

26. Dead people yes but removing people because they haven't voted in the last two Fed elections?

Legal citizens have the right to vote guaranteed,I don't recall where it says you better show up to vote each year or else. I think that law is BS and shouldn't be allowed in any State. There can be a lot of circumstances where people can't vote. That's why voting by mail should be made as easy as possible.

[littlemissmartypants]

27. The elections boards send out update cards to every registered voter.

It is the responsibility of the voters to reply to the request. It can be done by returning the mailer or in person.

Voting alone does not totally fulfill your responsibility to the board of elections as a voter.

The records are required by law to be updated.

It is the voter's responsibility.

It's not magic. It's not rocket science.

It's not evil or nefarious.

It's a right that comes with a responsibility. Like a lot of grown-up things.

Elections board workers are not clairvoyant.

It's the voters job to keep up their part of the bargain and when you register there's more to do to keep your registration active than just voting.

You have to keep your registration current.

[BumRushDaShow]

30. See this

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143314145

Federal law requires a time frame for when this should be done with very narrow exceptions.

H.R.2 - National Voter Registration Act of 1993

(snip)

2(A) A State shall complete, not later than 90 days prior
to the date of a primary or general election for Federal office,
any program the purpose of which is to systematically remove
the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible
voters.

(snip)

Let's not let the desire to lecture on "click bait" preclude actual awareness of the law and what is actually in it.

This has some details on what NC did - https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/north-carolina-election-boards-remove-over-700000-ineligible-voters/



However, there is actually an active case filed by the RNC demanding that the state remove even more (200K+ ) - https://www.democracydocket.com/cases/north-carolina-voter-registration-identification-challenge/

[littlemissmartypants]

31. Are you sure you wanted to post this here? I think I shared this with you the other day.

[BumRushDaShow]

32. There is a lot of discussion in this thread denigrating people who are questioning purges

I would assume that given NC has a Democratic governor, their election operation is on the up-and-up because the NC SOS is a Democrat.

However the GOP is attempting to force a further purge for bullshit reasons and I linked to that. If the courts agree with the RNC (even with the Appeals Court being a 9(D) - 6(R)), then guess what?

(I.e., we need to be "aware" of what the GOP intends to do this cycle)

[littlemissmartypants]

33. I'm very aware. I just wish others were, too. Oh, well.

Unfortunately, it seems that there are those who prefer complaining to listening and learning. I can't be responsible for someone else's lack of interest in knowledge.

No matter how many ways we try to break it down and elucidate there's always going to be someone finding fault. I give up. I have bigger fish to fry right now.

Thanks for your efforts. ❤️

[stopdiggin]

38. yes - but the 'purge' under discussion (as per OP)

Last edited Sun Sep 29, 2024, 02:40 PM - Edit history (1)

does not appear to outside the scope of normal practice. (from what I can tell)

Now if the MAGA crowd is attempting to sneak in some shady stuff (in addition) - then by all means give em' hell on those measures.

[BumRushDaShow]

39. "if the is attempting to sneak in some shady stuff (in addition) - then by all means give em' hell on those measures."

See this - https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=3314742

[stopdiggin]

41. then it would appear that those efforts would fail

based on Federal election law, and the nearness of the election.

But, again - the original post ...
Had as it's focus the deletions from the rolls performed over past couple of years.

[BumRushDaShow]

42. "then it would appear that those efforts would fail"

The issue here in PA with a law - "Act-77" - that was passed almost unanimously by the-then GOP controlled PA State Assembly (with 1 (R) and 1 (D) who voted against it), has been going on since 45 lost this state in November 2020, and the GOP hasn't stopped trying to trash and undermine a law that THEY passed.

It's obvious that the GOP do not intend on letting up nationally either - https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143314888

DOJ caught them doing possible illegal purges in AL (a state that JUST got a new redraw of Congressional districts that could net another Democrat) - https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143314145

My point is that we need to be aware of underlying things going on with machinations of voting processes that are being pummeled by the GOP as part of a strategy, and there is no reason to dismiss the fact that they are attempting to do it in NC just as they are doing it here in PA.

In other words, voicing the continued need to monitor the application (misapplication and/or ignoring) of state and/or federal voting-related laws is not all "CT", because it's actually a GOP strategy that they have broadcast very loudly.

[GB_RN]

21. It's Not As Sinister As It Sounds.

The NC Board of Elections is currently in control of us Democrats. And WE certainly aren’t going to purge the list, just because. Anyone purged would be a legitimate removal.

The Governor appoints the members from a list of nominees submitted to the Governor by the State party chair of each of the two political parties having the highest number of registered affiliates. Not more than three members of the State Board shall be members of the same political party.

(Emphasis mine.)

Because Cooper is a Democrat, the current makeup of the BOE is 3:2, in the Democrats’ favor: The party of the governor gets to hold the chairmanship, plus the two, regular members. If that shitbag, Robinson would get to appoint the chair and control would switch to the fascists.
The makeup of the county/local BOEs follows that of the state BOE. So, shenanigans are much less likely to occur.

The fascists in the NC General Assembly passed a law that would have stripped the governor of the ability to appoint BOE members (placing that power in their hands), would have made the composition an EVEN number. Deadlocks would be guaranteed and nothing would get done. Which was the point.
There’s a preliminary injunction that’s got that shit on hold, fortunately.

[littlemissmartypants]

28. Thank you. ❤️

[Oopsie Daisy]

29. Will those voters who moved, or who are inactive, be able to vote provisionally?

[stopdiggin]

36. that is generally the case

although, again, I'm not up on the specifics of NC election law.

(Federal law - HAVA 2002 - requires this type of accommodation. And a brief search seems to assure that NC, along with almost every state, does support provisional balloting.)

https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/provisional-ballots

[Oopsie Daisy]

37. Yes, that's what I assumed would be the case. --- They can vote provisionally and their ballot *

* set aside while they are given a few days to properly register and transfer/update their new address, or to properly prove that they still live at the previous address, even though it became an inactive registration.

It ends up being more work for the voter... but it's something that they would have needed to do anyway, or something that wouldn't have been necessary if they'd just remained active.

And this is better than having people violate election laws by returning to their old polling location to vote as though they still lived in that area. As voters we have a responsibility ourselves to keep our registration info accurate (and active).

[Jk23]

40. But I want people to panic

How are we supposed to get people to panic if you come across all logical and fact-filled.

[VMA131Marine]

9. But maybe this is a typical number

It’s also very very unlikely that all the names removed are Democrats. We’d have to see a breakdown by party to know if there was partisan bias in making these removals. One hopes that people who are eligible to vote and want to vote will check on their status before it’s too late

[oldmanlynn]

19. There is always partisan bias when republicans do these things.

They are hoping court cases wont prevail or will run into sympathetic judges.

[Igel]

22. How about when it's in the hands of Democrats?

See post #21.

[BumRushDaShow]

34. The concern might be with a CURRENT RNC case against NC registrants

See post #30 - https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=3314711

And specifically this -

However, there is actually an active case filed by the RNC demanding that the state remove even more (200K+ ) - https://www.democracydocket.com/cases/north-carolina-voter-registration-identification-challenge/

The DNC was just granted the ability to intervene on behalf of the state to attempt to ditch this crap (PDF)-
https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/2024-09-10-Order-granting-Democratic-National-Committees-motion-to-intervene.pdf

The NC SOS is an elected position and is fortunately a (D) (and she is up for re-election this year), and let's hope this year that ALL of the top NC state officials can be (D), because right now, NC has a fucking loon for Lt. Governor.

[Joinfortmill]

4. That sounds unreasonable in the extreme.

[Fiendish Thingy]

5. Hopefully Anderson Clayton's team has registered lots of 18 year olds. Nt

[Warpy]

6. What makes this remarkable is the sheer number

There were 7,666,436 registered overs per https://vt.ncsbe.gov/RegStat/Results/?date=09%2F21%2F2024

This means nearly 10% of registered voters are being kicked off the rolls. I'd say that should ring quite a few alarm bells. Whiile this might seem light routine housecleaning, it should have been done a long time ago, not this close to an election, and should not have involved so many voters.

If you live in NC, PLEASE make sure you are still registered to vote. Your state certainly depends on it and your country might.

[littlemissmartypants]

11. Thats NOT what it means and please stop spreading bad information. TY!

[onenote]

14. It didn't just happen "close to the election" -- its the number removed over the past 20 months.

It says that in the very first sentence of the OP. Which suggests that maybe you didn't bother to read it?

[FakeNoose]

7. How to find out if you're registered to vote in NC

https://vt.ncsbe.gov/RegLkup/

If you thought you were registered, and found out otherwise, you have until October 11th to re-register:

https://www.ncsbe.gov/news/events/voter-registration-deadline-2024-general-election

Don't delay - Do it Today

[Igel]

23. That depends on the state.

You're removed from the active roles but even back in 2002 (and before that, different state, 1998) if you moved inside the district or just hadn't voted for two elections, a simple ID was enough to get you a ballot and casting your vote--an affidavit ballot (aka "provisional ballot" in federalese).

There was a CT for a while that provisional ballots were always tossed. That falls into the "black box voting" category of things.

Sure, you can also reregister, but the in-personal affidavit ballot strikes me as easier. (Assuming you moved in your precinct and know this to be true.)

[FakeNoose]

25. Yes but this article is about North Carolina

So the NC links are the only ones that are relevant.

[BumRushDaShow]

35. "There was a CT for a while that provisional ballots were always tossed."

There are cases being litigated right now here in PA where counties WERE "tossing provisional ballots" and/or were NOT offering that option.

County was wrong to reject provisional ballots from voters who made mail ballot errors, Pa. court says

by Carter Walker of Votebeat | Sept. 6, 2024


HARRISBURG — A judge got it wrong when he decided that Butler County did not have to count provisional ballots from voters whose mail ballots were rejected because of an error, Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ruled Thursday.

Lawyers for voting rights groups that brought the case said the ruling would set a statewide standard.

Meanwhile, a broader case on whether mail ballots can be rejected because voters failed to properly date their return envelopes is moving forward after an appeal, setting the stage for a state Supreme Court decision.

The fast-moving cases underscore the political importance of Pennsylvania’s votes in the run-up to the November election. Decisions in these cases involving long-running disputes over the state’s voting rules are likely to influence how the election is conducted and whose votes get counted — which could determine the outcome itself.

(snip)

This was just upheld here a few days ago -

Pennsylvania county must tell voters if it counted their mail-in ballot, court rules


By MARC LEVY
Updated 1:23 PM EDT, September 24, 2024


HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — A Republican-controlled county in Pennsylvania violated state law when election workers refused to tell voters whether their mail-in ballot would be counted in April’s primary election, an appeals court ruled Tuesday.

The case is one of several election-related lawsuits being fought in courts in Pennsylvania, a presidential battleground state where November’s contest between Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Kamala Harris could be close. Through a 2-1 decision, the statewide Commonwealth Court panel upheld a Washington County judge’s month-old order.

The order requires county employees to notify any voter whose mail-in ballot is rejected because of an error — such as a missing signature or missing handwritten date — so that the voter has an opportunity to challenge the decision. It also requires Washington County to allow those voters to vote by provisional ballot.

In the 19-page majority opinion, Judge Michael Wojcik wrote that the county’s past policy “emasculates” the law’s guarantees that voters can protest the rejection of their ballot and take advantage of the “statutory failsafe” of casting a provisional ballot.

(snip)

This is showing that at least 2 different PA counties DID reject the idea of "provisional ballots" as an option.

The GOP doesn't give a shit about "federal law" (the provisional requirement, for whatever covered circumstance, was codified with the "Help America Vote Act" (HAVA)) and will attempt to come up with any reason to gum up the works.

[Delphinus]

8. That is

a shit-ton of people. I find it rather curious - why so many? Had someone NOT been doing their job?

[littlemissmartypants]

12. Yes. The voters. If you keep your registration current at the BOE

Are NOT dead or a felon then you are probably a current voter. People act like this is some kind of magic.

With rights come responsibility.

Keep up your part of the bargain and you won't have this happen to you.

And by the way, it's not that big of a deal to correct. People need to quit whining.

[onenote]

15. 747,000 over 20 months. My math skills aren't great but I think that's around 37,350/month or less than 1/2 of 1 percent

[forgotmylogin]

18. Why are they allowed to do this RIGHT before an election?

I know the confusion is the objective, but wouldn't it make sense to have some kind of rule that you can only prune voter rolls in an off-year? Like have a cutoff three months before an election?

[Igel]

24. What's "this"? Make the announcement about the previous 20 months?

That pretty much backs up the start date to right after the previous election.

[JohnSJ]

20. It is pretty common sense, if you move to a new address, or you hadn't voted in an election for a couple of years, you

need to register or re-register to vote if you want to vote in an upcoming election.

From my understanding they have 25 days before an election to register to vote, so if any of those who were removed from the voting roles because they changed their address etc., they can still register to vote if they want to vote.

The one that concerns me is Georgia, because of this new election committee who are setting up all kinds of new rules for refusing to certify and election.

[milestogo]

43. This is why I never stop voting.

Spring elections, primaries, November elections, I'm there. When I move, re-registering is the first thing I do along with changing my drivers license. Its not going to happen to me.