...
>
>But either way, preventing correction creates an opportunity for abuse.

And so may do the correction, if it's overreaching.

>What Ohio wants to do, is make organized attempts to contact these oldsters and if there's no response then they're off the roll until they re-establish eligibility. Ohio also wants to start this process for anybody who doesn't vote in a series of elections on the grounds that they may have shifted state or district, or died.

I agree with the list purging, but to what extent? Voter fraud happens, and it may happen in the future with no guarantee that anyone can prevent it completely. However, it is very rare, it is also easily detectable by the state, and people are held accountable and votes discarded. Isn't that a far less expensive process to ensure more correct outcomes?

>Before declaring that this disenfranchises people, it's a shame hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars fighting all the way to the SC weren't saved by litigants first checking how other rich and poor democracies ensure electoral integrity.

The Supreme Court decision was 5-4, which means people a lot more qualified than me and you had a rather spirited and meaningful argument that took into consideration these issues. Can you guarantee that voter fraud does not occur in other democracies?
*