No quibbles with the rest of the post and the madness therein, but I think your concern over the clause in the bill is perhaps misplaced. (Admittedly you merely re-reported what was elsewhere, so the original misplaced concern lies with that author.) Maybe I’m just reading it wrong, so feel free to point out where I’ve gone wrong assuming I’ve indeed done so.

The whole clause at issue here is:

(2) PROHIBITING REMOVAL OF REGISTERED VOTERS INCLUDED ON COMPUTERIZED LIST FOR FAILURE TO VOTE OR APPEAR TO VOTE- Section 8 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6) is amended–

(A) in subsection (b)(2), by inserting after ‘eligible voters’ the following: ‘(other than an individual to whom a unique identifier has been assigned under the computerized Statewide voter registration list under section 303(a) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002)’; and

(B) in subsection (d)(1)(B)(i), by striking ‘has failed’ and inserting the following: ‘in the case of a registrant to whom a unique identifier has not been assigned under the computerized Statewide voter registration list under section 303(a) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, has failed’.

So, first and foremost, at first glance it looks like this only applies to any “individual to whom a unique identifier has been assigned under the computerized Statewide voter registration list under section 303(a) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002″. Looking at the text to be modified in the first instance, we see that in the first case we have:

(b) Confirmation of voter registration
Any State program or activity 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-
(1) shall be uniform, nondiscriminatory, and in compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973 et seq.); and
(2) shall not result in the removal of the name of any person from the official list of voters registered to vote in an election for Federal office by reason of the person’s failure to vote, except that nothing in this paragraph may be construed to prohibit a State from using the procedures described in subsections (c) and (d) of this section to remove an individual from the official list of eligible voters if the individual-
(A) has not either notified the applicable registrar (in person or in writing) or responded during the period described in subparagraph (B) to the notice sent by the applicable registrar; and then
(B) has not voted or appeared to vote in 2 or more consecutive general elections for Federal office.

As far as I can parse that, states can’t strike voters from the official list of eligible voters except if the voter has been incommunicado and has not voted in at least two consecutive general elections for federal office. That seems to be what Detroit says ties its hands.

Now, if we modify (b)(2) we would have:

(2) shall not result in the removal of the name of any person from the official list of voters registered to vote in an election for Federal office by reason of the person’s failure to vote, except that nothing in this paragraph may be construed to prohibit a State from using the procedures described in subsections (c) and (d) of this section to remove an individual from the official list of eligible voters (other than an individual to whom a unique identifier has been assigned under the computerized Statewide voter registration list under section 303(a) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002) if the individual-

So the predicted meaning from the modification seems to hold. However, what are the provisions for removing voters from the computerized list? Are they the same or no? As far as I can tell section 303(a) of HAVA corresponds to 42 U.S.C. ? 15483, in which subsection (4) is as follows:

(4) Minimum standard for accuracy of State voter registration records
The State election system shall include provisions to ensure that voter registration records in the State are accurate and are updated regularly, including the following:
(A) A system of file maintenance that makes a reasonable effort to remove registrants who are ineligible to vote from the official list of eligible voters. Under such system, consistent with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg et seq.), registrants who have not responded to a notice and who have not voted in 2 consecutive general elections for Federal office shall be removed from the official list of eligible voters, except that no registrant may be removed solely by reason of a failure to vote.
(B) Safeguards to ensure that eligible voters are not removed in error from the official list of eligible voters.

First, this says state election systems should take steps to ensure that voter registration records are accurate and up-to-date. In particular the state should make an attempt to remove ineligible voters, and voters who are incommunicado and haven’t voted in two consecutive general elections for federal office shall be removed. (I don’t understand the apparent superfluous rhetorical flourish “except…solely by reason of a failure to vote”, which doesn’t seem to be something contemplated by the previous clause in the sentence. Maybe that’s significant, but I don’t see how it is.) Note that’s shall, not may, which actually seems to me to be stricter than the provision being modified — that one gave states permission to remove unreachable voters who hadn’t voted in two consecutive elections, whereas this one requires them to remove those voters. As far as the first change in the new clause goes, then, as far as I can tell it actually makes it easier for states to strike awol voters.

What about the second clause? Here’s the original unmodified text of (d)(1):

(1) A State shall not remove the name of a registrant from the official list of eligible voters in elections for Federal office on the ground that the registrant has changed residence unless the registrant-
(A) confirms in writing that the registrant has changed residence to a place outside the registrar’s jurisdiction in which the registrant is registered; or
(B)
(i) has failed to respond to a notice described in paragraph (2); and
(ii) has not voted or appeared to vote (and, if necessary, correct the registrar’s record of the registrant’s address) in an election during the period beginning on the date of the notice and ending on the day after the date of the second general election for Federal office that occurs after the date of the notice.

So this second change, then, simply synchronizes with the previous change by separating computerized-list voters into a separate group, again with that stricter removal process.

All in all, then, the clause in the bill seems on its own fairly harmless. It makes it a little more complicated to read the law, but it makes previous allowable ineligibility determinations required, which seems a net win to me. I’d *like* to be able to feel outraged over voting leniencies introduced to our voting process by wrong-headed liberals, but unlike things like what was unsuccessfully challenged last year in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, this change doesn’t seem to be one of them.