>>Yes, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the state. The final decision was merely that "the state action complies with federal law", not that it was not too aggressive. However, if you read the transcript of the Supreme Court argument, perhaps you would have had more consideration for the issue, which would have prevented you from making a false claim.

If rhe removal process does not violate any part of the National Voter Registration Act then it's not too aggressive. By definition. Direct quote, my emphasis: "Ohio removes the registrants at issue on a permissible ground: change of residence... the failure to return a notice and the failure to vote simply serve as evidence that a registrant has moved, not as the ground itself for removal" (which is what the litigants asserted) and in addition, as long as measures are "uniform, nondiscriminatory, and in compliance with the Voting Rights Act ... States may use whatever trigger they think best."

In other words, the claims of the litigants and the lower Appeal court were entirely repudiated- and like every Supreme court decision in the world, the verdict is the verdict. You're over-reaching.

>>... that the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. I wonder what was your investigation to determine that the 72 did vote, other than "checking online"?

Probably about the same as your investigation of other democracies that would reject your own false narratives on the spot. See, we can both conjure up moral high horses and act censorious.

Is there evidence of the 72 who voted? That same site that had the list of oldsters, conducted the research and made the claim. I suppose I could dig for it, but based on earlier responses I expect you'll simply declare that 72 isn't enough to swing an election so it doesn't matter. The other issue is that the only to quantify further is to do what Ohio now has been allowed to do by the SC, which you seem to be opposed to as well, while nevertheless lecturing about the need for evidence.