Because everyone always says they will vote dim over their dead body

Considering how many folks survived hospice care in California, maybe this is preemptive so as to not disenfranchise hospice survivors…?

Someone needs to pay one of the 4 R holdouts or Fetterman to vote yes on the Save act and get it rammed through

I believe it requires states to clean rolls every year. Idk what it does in regards to Mail in

How many states would change with that getting past? Idk if Dems would win Senate, House or President in long long time

Can't get it passed all because of TDS, idk if Thune would nuke the filibuster either. Old Mitch has a chance to go out on a high note, but wants to be John McCain instead

Fightin_Aggie said:

---

Because everyone always says they will vote dim over their dead body

---

This is a very underrated post. Well done and here's another blue star.

I recall a few years ago that it was either North or South Carolina had to be taken to court to force the removal of dead people from the voting rolls. I thought that was crazy but this just topped that.

I am going to guess that the courts will soon become involved here also and will force the removal of dead voters from the rolls. What the point of this is other than throwing some work to lawyers I do not know.

PCC_80 said:

---

I recall a few years ago that it was either North or South Carolina had to be taken to court to force the removal of dead people from the voting rolls. I thought that was crazy but this just topped that.

I am going to guess that the courts will soon become involved here also and will force the removal of dead voters from the rolls. What the point of this is other than throwing some work to lawyers I do not know.

---

Playing for time until after the midterms. Delay, delay, delay is the mantra. Use the slow pace through the courts as a weapon.

PCC_80 said:

---

I recall a few years ago that it was either North or South Carolina had to be taken to court to force the removal of dead people from the voting rolls. I thought that was crazy but this just topped that.

I am going to guess that the courts will soon become involved here also and will force the removal of dead voters from the rolls. What the point of this is other than throwing some work to lawyers I do not know.

---

Yes the courts will become involved but then democrats will be in charge of taking them off so who will check them? Or who will check them adding in fake names later on?

Timing is interesting…just after Virgina Supreme Court and US Supreme Court rulings.

How does this not get appealed all the way to SCOTUS?

We are talking about counting dead people's votes, which are by definition fraudulent, in federal elections as well as local.

Surely this isn't just left as is??

hockeyag said:

---

Timing is interesting…just after Virgina Supreme Court and US Supreme Court rulings.

---

There have been some court challenges in a few states over the maintenance (or lack thereof) of voter rolls. Unclear to me if MN is one of those states but if there is a case pending there, I can see why this vote could be part of a legal maneuver to muddy the waters.

But the legal argument that the Constitution gives the states exclusive rights to determine how their electors are chosen is a very weak argument, in this specific instance, in my view.

DOJ really needs to do an FBI raid on ERIC.

State's Rights man. They can do it however they like in their state. It doesn't say the dead can vote, just stay on the rolls. But why are they doing that? Certainly not more efficient, so we know why. But do they really need that in Minnesota of all places?

BQ78 said:

---

State's Rights man. They can do it however they like in their state. It doesn't say the dead can vote, just stay on the rolls. But why are they doing that? Certainly not more efficient, so we know why. But do they really need that in Minnesota of all places?

---

Apparently they think so. Minny-St. Paul has been the Dem state stronghold in the past, cancelling out rural voters. But with all of the issues in Minny since Saint George Floyd, population decline plus a ticked off electorate with the fraud being exposed. And Walz is not exactly a strong governor for the Dem party either.

Glad to see people are continuing to call out the need for election integrity and security. Apparently the Dems defend it as it makes voter rolls auditable. The state checks voters against the active voter roll. If somebody tries to commit voter fraud by voting for a deceased person, then the state can check the active voter roll. If the deceased voters are deleted entirely from the system, then how could it be audited? Seems like removing deceased people entirely would create a bigger security gap.

The following link lays out the arguments from the Dems and the GOP. Patriot Fetch - Minnesota Democrats Block Efforts To Remove Deceased Voters From Rolls

I don't know how credible that site is, but it's the most helpful info I found without a knee jerk reaction in either direction.

As quoted in the article: "Despite the provocative rhetoric, the voting records tell a more detailed story. Democrats... argue that while deceased voters are marked in the databases, retaining these records is essential. This practice helps prevent identity fraud by keeping a historical account that can signal any efforts to impersonate someone who has passed away....
..."Deceased voters are marked as deceased and removed from the list of active voters upon notification from the Minnesota Department of Health or Social Security Administration. Voter records marked as 'deceased' are not active and therefore not included on any voting roster or public information list.""

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

Come on libs. Lets here the reasoning for this.

---

Libs are too busy hyperventilating over a statue Trump out at his Florida golf course.

They will be silent when the Imam dedicates the Obama Obelisk of Doom in the Southside.

They look right past Mark Hammil simping for Obama's Lil Meccas on the same day Mark posts a meme of a dead Trump.

Stay classy libs!

Worth ending the filibuster over

Quote:

---

Glad to see people are continuing to call out the need for election integrity and security. Apparently the Dems defend it as it makes voter rolls auditable. The state checks voters against the active voter roll. If somebody tries to commit voter fraud by voting for a deceased person, then the state can check the active voter roll. If the deceased voters are deleted entirely from the system, then how could it be audited? Seems like removing deceased people entirely would create a bigger security gap.

---

That is some pretty warped thinking and shows you don't know how voter rolls really work. It is not even remotely a question of being auditable after an election. Ever heard of a provisional ballot?

With mail in ballots, only metric is the deeply flawed voter rolls. Election officials are not looking up obits for heaven's sake.

NorthSideCloseKnit said:

---

Glad to see people are continuing to call out the need for election integrity and security. Apparently the Dems defend it as it makes voter rolls auditable. The state checks voters against the active voter roll. If somebody tries to commit voter fraud by voting for a deceased person, then the state can check the active voter roll. If the deceased voters are deleted entirely from the system, then how could it be audited? Seems like removing deceased people entirely would create a bigger security gap.

The following link lays out the arguments from the Dems and the GOP. Patriot Fetch - Minnesota Democrats Block Efforts To Remove Deceased Voters From Rolls

I don't know how credible that site is, but it's the most helpful info I found without a knee jerk reaction in either direction.

As quoted in the article: "Despite the provocative rhetoric, the voting records tell a more detailed story. Democrats... argue that while deceased voters are marked in the databases, retaining these records is essential. This practice helps prevent identity fraud by keeping a historical account that can signal any efforts to impersonate someone who has passed away....
..."Deceased voters are marked as deceased and removed from the list of active voters upon notification from the Minnesota Department of Health or Social Security Administration. Voter records marked as 'deceased' are not active and therefore not included on any voting roster or public information list.""

---

The argument makes sense from a data governance perspective. The purpose of having voter rolls is historical as well as a control mechanism. Deleting a voter roll record when the voter dies isn't necessarily a good idea. The really important thing is to ensure that voter rolls are kept up-to-date so that ballots from dead voters are invalidated immediately and the person casting an invalid ballot faces consequences for doing so.

Quote:

---

The really important thing is to ensure that voter rolls are kept up-to-date so that ballots from dead voters are invalidated immediately and the person casting an invalid ballot faces consequences for doing so

---

They be invalidated BEFORE an election. That is the point of keeping voter rolls "up to date." Even in Texas, if one moves from one area from another there is a deadline a few months before a general election in which to register in the new location in order to vote in the imminent election.

Unfortunately, there are a few other aspects of this bill regarding election administration which they argue for, not just regarding dead people. If dead people was the only item on the bill, it would be painfully conspicuous and way too easy to call out the Dems for just that

That's a crock of horse*****

You work or have worked elections, IIRC. No?

BQ78 said:

---

State's Rights man. They can do it however they like in their state. It doesn't say the dead can vote, just stay on the rolls. But why are they doing that? Certainly not more efficient, so we know why. But do they really need that in Minnesota of all places?

---

At what point do state's rights end when a corrupt voting system affects people in other states? During the Biden years, taxpayers in Texas, Florida and other red states were funding/bailing out failing cities like Portland and Chicago. New York will next on that list if Democrats win the next election. We now have voting fraud leading to state wide financial fraud that is being partially funded by taxpayers in other states.

Claiming state's rights in states that allow obvious fraud or adopt ridiculous fiscal policies should end when they have the ability to seize tax money from other states. Particularly states which diametrically oppose those ideologies.

Should New York be able to take federal funds in five years when their fiscal policies fail and they need a bailout? States should only have the right to make their own decisions and make their own corrupt election laws if other states are not forced to pay for their stupidity or corruption.

Quote:

---

Minnesota state Dems vote to keep dead people on voter rolls

---

Keep, add what's the difference.

BQ78 said:

---

State's Rights man. They can do it however they like in their state. It doesn't say the dead can vote, just stay on the rolls. But why are they doing that? Certainly not more efficient, so we know why. But do they really need that in Minnesota of all places?

---

Being on roles I guess makes dead people eligible for all sorts of benefits fraud as well as voting fraud.

Deerdude said:

---

BQ78 said:

---

State's Rights man. They can do it however they like in their state. It doesn't say the dead can vote, just stay on the rolls. But why are they doing that? Certainly not more efficient, so we know why. But do they really need that in Minnesota of all places?

---

Being on roles I guess makes dead people eligible for all sorts of benefits fraud as well as voting fraud.

---

Such as jury duty. My mother who was elderly and had an age exemption from jury duty for several years was sent a jury summons six years after she died. FTR: She would have been 94 at that time.

But not illegal until there is fraud