Utah puts 76,000 inactive voters on hold

Democrats decry culling of inactive registrations

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Oct. 13, 2012 7:55 a.m.

    "12 percent of the voters whose status was put on hold were Democrats, 22 percent were Republicans, and 66 were unaffiliated"

    With repubs representing almost TWICE the number of dems on the purge list, how can the whiny liberals claim this is aimed at disproportionately disenfranchising dems?

  • grip Meridian, ID
    Oct. 12, 2012 8:15 p.m.

    I am pleased to see steps are finally being taken to legitimize voting records. Hope it continues. Any time unlawful or seemingly unlawful acts are stopped is the right time.

  • donburi South Jordan, UT
    Oct. 12, 2012 1:08 p.m.

    "Democrats have also blasted Republican election chiefs this year for undertaking efforts around the country to find noncitizens who are illegally registered to vote."

    Why would any party be against illegal voter registration?? Hmmmm...

  • NedGrimley Brigham City, UT
    Oct. 12, 2012 12:21 p.m.

    Finally. This has been a growing problem for years. I have heard that upwards of 40% of the names on the voter rolls in Utah are either dead or have moved. Because this action does not stop someone from being able to vote, but does clean up the voter rolls to reduce the possibility of voter fraud, it makes complete sense, regardless of when it was done.

    If the names being removed were precluded from voting bacause of the action, that would be a different story. Since that is not the case, any whining about it is silly.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Oct. 12, 2012 10:51 a.m.

    Re: sergio Phoenix, AZ
    "Doing it At this time it smells like dirty politics."

    I assume there is a more or less equal mix of Republicans and Democrats on this list who, for what ever reason, have shown zero interest in the election process. People need to take personal responsibility for their lives. If people want to vote for heaven's sake get out of bed, turn off the TV, and get registered. How hard can that possibly be??

  • Mc West Jordan, UT
    Oct. 12, 2012 8:58 a.m.

    When I was a poll worker in my own precinct I noticed numerous voters still on the list who were either deceased or had moved. Some of those who had moved came back to that precinct to vote because they had not bothered to register in their new area. Our son had moved to another state and voted there, but his name was still on our list. We would make a note on the record for those that we knew were deceased or moved, but the next election their names would still be there. The proceedure was to wait until the person had missed a certain number of elections before removing their names.

    People have every opportunity to vote if they want to. Nobody is disenfranchised by this proceedure. People disenfranchise themselves by being too lazy to vote, which is all they have to do to keep their registration current. If the percentage of democrats taken off the voter lists is greater than the percentage of registered democrats it simply means that a larger percentage have died, moved, or not bothered to vote. Not surprising in this very republican state to find that they didn't bother to vote.

  • freedomingood provo, Utah
    Oct. 12, 2012 8:49 a.m.

    You don't think a policy like that has any effect on keeping the status quo?

    Good luck. You can only vote them out if you were there to vote for them last time. Nice plan.

  • sergio Phoenix, AZ
    Oct. 12, 2012 8:43 a.m.

    The timing is way off, this is not the time to purge the list less than thirty days away from a major election. After the election is better timing and hopefully there will be a good turn out of voters and less names to remove. Doing it At this time it smells like dirty politics.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Oct. 12, 2012 6:08 a.m.

    Works for me. People who are not interested in being part of the election process can better spend their time complaining about the candidates other people help elect.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Oct. 12, 2012 5:57 a.m.

    Dabakis just likes to play victim.

    As Economist said, as long as they are still able to vote, what's the problem?

  • My2Cents Taylorsville, UT
    Oct. 12, 2012 3:24 a.m.

    This might sound reasonable but I can see some problems with this. How deep did they research archives about these voters? Did they cross check the names with the department of Vital Statics or police records to verify this action? Names should not be removed just because they haven't voted.

    What is more concerning is names being used to vote that are over 125 years old, well beyond the life span of a human. To be on voter list the voter must be a citizen in residence and if citizenship or residency cannot be established then removal should not even be questioned.

    Maybe we should have a law passed that puts county clerks in the loop of civil actions and vital statistics. But a responsible department would obtain that information without having to be told to. Deportations and criminal incarceration list should also be maintained without question.

    I think with a little more effort this voter list could be reduced by a few hundred thousand names statewide. After all, the reason for this is to reduce voter fraud and doubt in elections.

  • Ett Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 12, 2012 12:38 a.m.

    I find it amusing to say voters, who haven't bothered to vote for years, will be "disenfranchised." What makes the local Democrats think they'll be any more motivated to vote this year? All they had to do, to be active, is vote in local elections and they didn't even do that. I haven't missed a vote since 1976, local or otherwise.

  • WakeUpNowFR SLC, UT
    Oct. 12, 2012 12:00 a.m.

    Well the numbers would suggest that a disproportionate number of unaffiliated or democratic voters were removed. If 9% of the voter pop is Democrat and 12% of the holds were Democrat then that's a clear skewing of the percentages, over 30% proportionally. Additionally 66% of the holds were unaffiliated while they only make up 42% of the voter population. Lastly, the party behind the questionable decision held 22% of the holds while they actually represent 47% of the population as a whole. Clearly the numbers would suggest that it would have a larger effect on non Republican voters either unaffiliated or Democrat. I would think that given the numbers that in order to avoid the suggestion that they were doing something of questionable ethics they would wait until after the general election to remove the names. Since they didn't any logical observer would have to assume that the act was deliberate as they were willing to pay the price of appearing unethical to achieve the end. It's math and pretty simple math too.

  • Economist Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 11, 2012 11:25 p.m.

    Don't see a problem with it...as long as they are able to cast a provisional ballot and aren't denied the right to vote, its' fine with me.

    Freedom-loving Liberal