Have you tried
Swivel Business?

Reason for Removal

By Natalie on Oct 09, 2008
Viewed 20634 times

Graph Table Map Absolute Relative More Options

Type	Vertical Scale	Sort	Data Aggregation
Bar Horizontal Bar Scatter Line Pie Other Views Table	Absolute Relative to Average Relative to Range	Highest Lowest Alphabetical	Average High Low Total Count Distinct None

Sources: NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008...)

Under federal law, states cannot remove voters from the rolls 90 days before a federal election unless voters die, move out of the state, or have been declared unfit to vote for legal or mental health reasons. But, in some states, like Colorado, the number of purged voter registration far exceeds the number who have died or relocated. Since August 1, more than 37,000 registrations have been purged. This graph shows the percent of purged voter registrations by reason. A larger share of voters removed were Democrats, and more than half of them were active voters in the last two elections (2004 and 2006). —Natalie

Comments (3)

Zapper

Zapper says

Why in God's name are the names of purged voters not required to be published in the media so that any purged voter has the opportunity to check the list in case they are unaware of the fact? This should be a legal requirement for any act so fundamentally damaging to the basic rights of an American and the penalty for violation so severe that no one would dare violate it.

At the very least, political parties should make it part of their modus operandi to devote a healthy portion of their budgets toward publishing these names in prominent ways. The selective pattern of targeting certain demographic groups for this kind of despicable disenfranchisement, for cutting off anyone that show antipathy towards one's party affiliation, would become neutered if the names were published and people could easily check long before election time as a matter of routine to see if they had been so targeted.

This isn't brain surgery folks and it bespeaks a sad indifference on the part of both the politicians and the public in our culture that this practice isn't considered a much, much, more serious crime against a citizen than it seems to be. It's like saying "Gee, there's only 2% of people murdered in the country. It's not that big a problem in the overall scheme of things. Let's just let it slide."

It disgusts me that both the Democratic and Republican parties treat this proven practice with such seeming indifference when it comes to putting their money where their mouth is.

Of course, why am I surprised? I'm sure their answer will be some contorted rationale based on the need to protect us from terrorist attacks or some other lame excuse for jettisoning yet another fundamentally American precept or tenant of democracy.

posted 8 months ago

Natalie

Natalie says

I agree there's not enough attention on this subject. Thank you for you thoughts. :)

posted 8 months ago

hankjmatt

hankjmatt says

http://www.online-flash-gam...
The selective pattern of targeting certain demographic groups for this kind of despicable disenfranchisement, for cutting off anyone that show antipathy towards one's party affiliation, would become neutered if the names were published and people could easily check long before election time as a matter of routine to see if they had been so targeted.

posted 2 months ago