Re: [EL] Query about all-mail election only sending ballots automatically to "active"voters (e.g, voted in 2010)

First, the NVRA applies to federal elections, but since states and
localities have found it expensive and burdensome to maintain more than
one set of registration books - one for federal elections and one for
state and local elections - the NVRA effectively applies to sub-national
elections as well. Haven't there been lawsuits that settled this matter?
I recall the state of Louisiana trying to resist the NVRA by maintaining
two sets of books for awhile. Anyway, I offer my thoughts here not as a
lawyer.

The word "inactive" appears nowhere in the NVRA. My recollection is that
the biennial FEC reports to the Congress on the implementation of the
NVRA routinely suggested to the states that they cabin voters on
"inactive" lists for some period of time until their ineligibility could
be confirmed if they suspected such voters of having moved out of
jurisdiction or of having died. Their ineligibility can be confirmed in
a number of ways, and one of them is to determine whether such voters
fail to vote in two successive federal elections. States are not
required to "purge" such voters from the list, but they are permitted to
do so as part of a reasonable program to keep the registration lists
current, although it is important to keep in mind that this is not
purging for failing to vote. Election officials must first attempt to
confirm that a voter has moved with a forwardable piece of mail, and
when the voter doesn't reply to confirm or deny a move, as he or she is
to be asked to do, election officials may use the additional evidence of
voter absence at two successive federal elections to establish voter
ineligibility and may then remove the voter's name from the rolls.
During the years while this process unfolds, registrars may place such
voters' names on so-called inactive lists. In this regard, inactive
lists are meant to be a means of meeting two important goals: 1)
protecting voters from the kind of discriminatory list purging that the
southern states, in particular, were well-known for in the past by
explicitly prohibiting purges due to a failure to vote in an election;
and 2) to provide a means for election officials to "protect the
integrity of the electoral process by ensuring the maintenance of an
accurate and current voter registration roll for elections for Federal
office," as the NVRA states it. In the case of voters who fail to return
the required mailing from election officials who suspect that such
voters have moved, election officials may ask these voters for
"affirmation or confirmation of the registrants' address" if they happen
to show up to vote in their old jurisdiction. This has been understood
to mean that "inactive" voters may be asked for more ID at the polls
than a state normally may require (though more states now require more
ID than they used to).

So, where does this leave Fort Collins' practices, as described by Rob
and Jenny? Lawyers on the list will know this better than I do, but I
think the "inactive" label the way Fort Collins is using it has no
meaning under the NVRA, and if the NVRA applies to the maintenance of
voter registration records used in municipal elections in Colorado, I
would think there is a strong claim to be made that in practice, in
all-mail municipal elections, Fort Collins is treating voters Larimer
County has arbitrarily has designated as "inactive" /as if they had been
removed from the rolls/ even if in actuality Fort Collins has not
removed their names from the registration rolls, and these voters -- if
they do more than any other voter is required to do by first, figuring
out before an election if they are going to get a ballot in the mail,
and second, if not, exercise the initiative to request one -- can still
cast ballots.

Am I wrong?

Lori Minnite

Jenny Flanagan wrote: