Supreme Court's SAVE database ruling won't disenfranchise voters
Every time supporters of election reforms like voter ID and citizenship verification, which are intended to improve the security and integrity of our elections, win a case in the courts, opponents drag out the “mass disenfranchisement” claim. You can see that tiresome con game being played once again with the Supreme Court’s Sept. 25 decision in Department of Homeland Security v. League of Women Voters.
TL;DR
- Opponents of election reforms like voter ID and citizenship verification frequently use the 'mass disenfranchisement' claim when such reforms face legal challenges.
- The Supreme Court's decision in *Department of Homeland Security v. League of Women Voters* involved the use of DHS's SAVE database to verify voter citizenship.
- A federal judge initially enjoined the use of the SAVE database, but the Supreme Court dissolved the injunction, citing federal law that allows DHS to receive citizenship information from other agencies.
- The Help America Vote Act of 2002 mandates provisional balloting for voters whose eligibility is in question, ensuring their ballot is counted if they are found to be eligible.
- The article argues that the 'mass disenfranchisement' claim is false due to the provisional balloting system and the legal framework governing information sharing for citizenship verification.