Check out today's column from the Republic's Abe Kwok. Read Alito's argument and then Kwok's analysis of that argument and see if you can find both errors.
In the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that while federal laws forbid removing people from voter rolls “by reason of the person’s failure to vote,” Ohio does not use failure to vote as the sole criterion. “Ohio removes registrants only if they have failed to vote and have failed to respond to a notice,” Alito wrote.
Here's what Kwok writes about Alito's quote.
In other words, failing to respond to a mailed notice represents sufficient cause for losing the right to vote.
No. That's false. Kwok has made the classic logical error of confusing a "necessary" cause for a "sufficient" cause. Alito was clear: the registrant must have failed to vote in the last two years AND failed to respond to the notice. Kwok's condition "failed to respond" is NOT a sufficient cause for being removed from the roles.
Kwok commits a second error that is not as obvious, but still quite serious. Go back to the Alito quote. What happens when someone fails to vote for two years AND doesn't respond to the notice? Their voter registration is voided. Kwok conflates the terms "removes registrants" with "losing the right to vote." These two results are vastly different. To be sure, Kwok points out that if someone is removed from the roles, he simply needs to reregister. Yes, it can be a burden to reregister to vote. But it is not the same as "losing the right to vote."
You may think I'm just being picky, but readers are going to assume that Kwok's factual statement is, well, factual. They may actually believe that in Ohio, "failing to respond to a mailed notice represents sufficient cause for losing the right to vote." The fact is that both parts of that sentence are wrong.