The only one confused, Pete, is you... if historical revisionism can be called confusion.

The fact is, Lincoln was a Republican, Booth was a Democrat. It was Republicans who attempted to end s***ery. It was Republicans who stopped its spread.

The KKK was an arm of the Democrat Party. I believe is was Strom Thurmond who said that it was not possible for person to be elected to the Democrat caucus in Washington unless he was a member of the KKK. Bill Clinton, in honoring him, stated the same except he said it was also a requirement for dog catcher, that to be elected to anything as a Democrat in those days, one had to be a member in good standing of the KKK. He is noted for making the longest filibuster in Congressional history. In 1957, he spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes, expounding on the dangers of the C*******t Civil Rights movement and the damage it was doing to the country. He remained a member of the KKK until he switched parties in 1964. If it is true that his membership in the KKK was nothing more than a pragmatic act, his switching parties would have been the same, an act of political convenience.

All the way up to LBJ, Democrats fought e******y legislation for African-Americans.

The Liberal/Conservative fiction the Left has concocted in order to subvert the facts of history is as phony as everything else the Left pretends to believe in. Like Thurmond, Wallace and LBJ, wh**ever is convenient must be best answer.

Legality
Section 8 of the National V***r R**********n Act of 1993 (NVRA) has been interpreted to prohibit v**er caging:

"Pursuant to the NVRA, a v**er may not be removed from the v**ers list unless (1) the v**er has requested removal; (2) state law requires removal by reason of criminal conviction or mental capacity; (3) the v**er has confirmed in writing that he has moved outside the jurisdiction maintaining the specific v**er list, or (4) the v**er both (a) has failed to respond to a cancellation notice issued pursuant to the NVRA and (b) has not v**ed or appeared to v**e in the two federal general e******ns following the date of notice."[4]

V**er caging may thus be legal if the primary purpose is to identify those who are not properly registered to v**e and to prevent them from v****g illegally but not if the primary purpose is to disenfranchise legitimately registered v**ers on the basis of a technicality.

In January 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Husted v. Randolph Institute, a legal challenge to Ohio v**er caging laws. The Court upheld Ohio's list-maintenance practice in a 5–4 decision issued in June 2018.

1980s
See also: B****t Security Task Force
In 1981 and 1986, the Republican National Committee (RNC) sent out letters to African-American neighborhoods. When tens of thousands of them were returned undeliverable, the party successfully challenged the v**ers and had them deleted from v****g rolls. The violation of the V****g Rights Act got the RNC taken to court by the Democratic National Committee (DNC). As a result of the case, the RNC entered a consent decree, which prohibited the party from engaging in anti-fraud initiatives that targeted minorities from conducting mail campaigns to "compile v**er challenge lists."[5]

The RNC sent letters to predominantly-black neighborhoods in New Jersey in 1981. When 45,000 letters were returned as undeliverable, the committee compiled a challenge list to remove those v**ers from the rolls. The RNC then sent off-duty law enforcement officials to the polls and hung posters in heavily black neighborhoods warning that violating e******n laws is a crime. The effect was to suppress or intimidate black v**ers.

In Louisiana in 1986, the RNC tried to have 31,000 v**ers, mostly black, removed from the rolls when a party mailer was returned. Again, the action was challenged and dismissed. The consent decrees that resulted prohibited the party from engaging in anti-fraud initiatives that target minorities or from conducting mail campaigns to "compile v**er challenge lists."

2004 e******ns
BBC journalist Greg Palast obtained an RNC document entitled "State Implementation Template III.doc" that described Republican e******n operations for caging plans in numerous states. The paragraph in the document pertaining to caging was:

V. Pre E******n Day Operations New Registration Mailing
At wh**ever point registration in the state closes, a first class mailing should be sent to all new registrants as well as purged/inactive v**ers. This mailing should welcome the recipient to the v**er rolls. It is important that a return address is clearly identifiable. Any mail returned as undeliverable for any reason, should be used to generate a list of problematic registrations. Poll watchers should have this list and be prepared to challenge anyone from this list attempting to v**e.[6][7]

Shortly before the 2004 e******n, Palast also obtained a caging list for Jacksonville, Florida, which contained many b****s and registered Democrats. The list was attached to an email that a Florida Republican Party official was sending to RNC headquarters official Tim Griffin.[7][8][9]

The Republican National Committee also sent letters to minority areas in Cleveland, Ohio. When 35,000 letters were returned as undeliverable, the party employed poll watchers to challenge the v**ers' right to v**e. Civil liberties groups challenged the RNC in a case that went to the Supreme Court, but the RNC was not stopped from challenging the v**ers.[10]

Similarly, the RNC sent out 130,000 letters to minority areas in mostly-black Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and it hoped to cage v**ers there in the Democrat stronghold.[5]

Journalists have found evidence that the RNC had also attempted to use v**er caging to suppress or intimidate v**ers in states such as New Mexico, Ohio, Florida, Nevada, and Pennsylvania. For example, New Jersey RNC officials used caging lists to challenge absentee b****ts and absentee b****t requests.[10]

2008 e******ns
As noted earlier, the Republican Secretary of State in Michigan was found purging v**ers from v****g rolls when v**er ID cards were returned as undeliverable. In the court challenge, the federal judge ordered the state to reinstate the v**ers.[11] The judge ruled that the state's actions were in violation of the NVRA. His decision noted that there was no way to prevent qualified v**ers from being disfranchised as their cards may be returned as undeliverable by postal error, clerical error, inadvertent routing within a multi-unit dwelling, or even simple misspelling or t***sposition of numbers in an address.[12] In December 2007, Kansas Republican Chair Kris Kobach sent an email boasting that "to date, the Kansas GOP has identified and caged more v**ers in the last 11 months than the previous two years!"[13] Republicans sent out fundraising mailers to v**ers in five Florida counties: Duval, Hillsborough, Collier, Miami-Dade and Es**mbia, with 'do not forward' on the letters. The mailers included inaccurate v**er ID numbers and ostensibly confirmed with v**ers they were registered as Republican. The RNC declined to discuss the mailer with the St. Petersburg Times. A representative denied that the mailing had anything to do with caging. Two top Florida e******ns officials, both Republicans, faulted the Republican mailing, calling it "confusing" and "unfortunate" because of a potential to undermine v**er confidence by making them question the accuracy of their registrations." Some officials expressed concern that the RNC would try to use a caging list derived from the mailers.[14] In Northern California, reports of v**er caging emerged when letters marked 'do not forward' were sent to Democrats with f**e v**er ID numbers. The description of the letters matches the letters that were sent out in Florida.[15] See the caging letter that was sent out here. Many details on the letters were false; for example, the letters referred to a V**er Identification Division, but RNC personnel said they had no such department. The RNC did not return calls from a news organization regarding the letters. On October 5, 2008 the Republican (but elected on the Democratic ticket) Lieutenant Governor of Montana, John Bohlinger, accused the Montana Republican Party of v**e caging to purge 6,000 v**ers from three counties that trend Democratic. The purges included decorated war veterans and active duty soldiers.[16] Terri Lynn Land, the Secretary of State of Michigan, was found to be purging thousands of v**ers from v****g rolls based on V**er ID cards being returned as undeliverable.[11] The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) took Michigan to court over the purges. Judge Stephen J. Murphy ruled the purge illegal under the National V***r R**********n Act (NVRA) of 1993 and directed Land to reinstate the affected v**ers. (See full ruling here [17]). The New York Times found in its review of state records that unlawful actions in six states led to widespread v**er purges, which could have impacted the 2008 e******ns. Some of the actions were apparently the result of mistakes by the states in handling v***r r**********ns and files as they tried to comply with a 2002 federal law related to running e******ns. Neither party was singled out, but because the Democratic Party registered more new v**ers this year, Democratic v**ers were more adversely affected by such actions of state officials.[18]

2013: RNC v. DNC retention of consent decree
In the years since the original 1982 consent decree on v**er caging, a series of suits and countersuits between the RNC and the DNC as well as civil rights groups and labor unions ensued. The RNC would attempt to have the consent decree lifted and other parties would attempt to have the decree enforced in specific cases in which the plaintiffs would allege the RNC was in violation of the decree. In November 2008, the RNC sought to have the consent decree lifted in the U.S. District Court in Newark (Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee). Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise rejected the effort, and his ruling was upheld by the Third US Circuit Court of Appeals.[19] The Third Circuit ruling found, "It is not in the public interest to vacate the decree." It also stated, "If the RNC does not hope to engage in conduct that would violate the Decree, it is puzzling that the RNC is pursuing vacatur so vigorously notwithstanding the District Court's significant modifications to the Decree." [19] The RNC then petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to hear an appeal of the Third Circuit ruling; the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, leaving the Third Circuit ruling to stand as legally binding.[20]

2016: No new violation established
"On October 26, 2016, the DNC filed a motion asking that the court find the RNC had violated the decree. On November 5, after abbreviated discovery, the district court denied the DNC’s request, ruling that the DNC had not provided sufficient evidence of coordination between the Trump campaign and the RNC on b****t-security operations, but will allow the DNC to offer further evidence after the e******n," according to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.

Must respectively disagree with your summation~~if v**ers want to v**e then they should v**e or at least send change of address so the new location is updated... It isn’t the governments responsibility to keep up your v****g records its yours..

Supreme Court’s conservative justices uphold Ohio’s v**er purge system...
With the Supreme Court’s ruling, other states plan to follow Ohio’s lead on v**er purges... The real issue was v**er suppression...
So what is Ohio’s v**er purge system? It’s a means of removing v***r r**********ns that the state feels are outdated from its rolls, forcing someone to have to register once again to v**e. Anytime you move you are required to notify the property division relative to your change of address so your new registration card can be sent to you for v****g later.~~

Ohio uses a multi-step approach to do this: First, it waits for someone to not v**e for two years. Then it mails them a prepaid return card to make sure the would-be v**er still lives at the same address. If the state does not get the card back and the person does not v**e in any e******n for four more years, the state assumes the person has moved and removes the person’s v***r r**********n from the rolls, citing a change of residence.

Opponents of the system argue that it violates the federal National V***r R**********n Act and Help America V**e Act, which restrict a state from removing someone from the rolls just because the person failed to v**e...What if they died or moved out state?? Purging is necessary now more than ever too!!

The US Supreme Court on Monday upheld Ohio’s system for purging v**ers from the rolls.

The Court split 5-4 along partisan lines, with the five conservative-leaning justices, in a majority opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, upholding the system and the four liberal-leaning justices opposing it. The ruling focused in large part on technical interpretations of federal v****g laws, although the argument underlying Ohio’s system is, in fact, a much bigger one about v**er suppression.
The Supreme Court’s Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute ruling concluded, however, that Ohio’s v**er purge system did not violate federal laws. The Court found that Ohio’s system uses a lack of v****g as just one piece of evidence, along with the lack of response to the prepaid return card, to trigger a person’s removal from the rolls. Since a person not v****g is not the sole basis for removal from the rolls, the Court said, it’s legal under federal law...

Here, just read this should you wish..

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2018/6/11/17448742/ohio-v**er-purge-supreme-court-ruling

A bit more that may shed more light on the issue~~

V**er purging
V***r r**********n lists, also called v**er rolls, are the gateway to v****g because a citizen typically cannot cast a v**e that will count unless his or her name appears on the v***r r**********n rolls. State and local officials regularly remove—or purge—citizens from v**er rolls. In fact, 39 states and the District of Columbia reported purging more than 13 million v**ers from registration rolls between 2004 and 2006.[8]

Why purges are done
Purges, if done properly, are a means to ensure that v**er rolls are dependable, accurate, and up-to-date. Precise and carefully conducted purges can remove duplicate names and people who have moved, died, or are otherwise ineligible.

Problems with purging
Purging creates a problem when an eligible, registered citizen shows up to v**e and discovers that his or her name has been removed from the v**er list. Different states exercise very different practices as to how they maintain their v**er rolls. Some critics of the process, such as the Brennan Center for Justice, maintain that sometimes the process is "shrouded in secrecy, prone to error and vulnerable to manipulation.

Remedies for wrongful purging
In 2002, Congress mandated that all states enact the Help America V**e Act to help fix some of the problems faced in the 2000 e******ns. HAVA requires persons who claim to be registered to v**e in a federal e******n in a jurisdiction, but are not on the v***r r**********n list or are otherwise alleged to be ineligible to v**e, be offered and permitted to cast a provisional, or paper, b****t. This provisional b****t would then be verified and counted after the e******n. In the 2004 e******n, 1.6 million provisional b****ts were cast, and over 1 million were counted. Seventy percent of provisional b****ts cast in states that allow provisional b****ts to be cast in the proper jurisdiction were counted as valid. In states requiring that provisional b****ts be cast in the proper precinct, 62 percent were counted....

*****V**er purging news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms V**er purging caging. These results are automatically generated from Google. B****tpedia does not curate or endorse these articles...