From the story that you so clearly read:

He recently received a letter from county elections officials asking him to show proof he was a U.S. citizen or be removed from the voting rolls.

They didn't send him a letter asking him if he was still alive.  They sent him a letter asking him to prove he was a U.S. citizen-- something that you think maybe should have been handled when he registered to vote.  The question is, what made the state key on him and 127,000 living others as potentially ineligible to vote?  And why did they decide to do their purge so close to the actual vote when experience has shown that the timing will result in eligible voters being turned away from the polls?

Based on your comments in the Pennsylvania story-- i.e. Why should someone have to show an ID to vote?-- I'm a little surprised at your reaction here.  Let's start with the assumption that you're going to have a kneejerk whenever you see my name at the top of a post and understand your comment in that light.

Also, if you really thought, Mr. Internicola was caught up in the death notice purge, what was your thinking on why they waited 13 years to question him?  Do you suppose there's a dark office at the state board of elections somewhere with a dusty stack of 1999 death notices that they're just now getting to?

Why should he have to prove it? Let the State of Florida prove he's not a citizen if that's their hypothesis.

If I were challenged by the state of Arizona to offer proof of citizenship and residency, I would consider it a privilege to provide it.  Not annoyed at all.  

I do have an attested copy of my birth certificate, which has come in very handy more often than I thought it would.  I haven't had a Social Security card since before my 19th birthday, it was taken by an Air Force recruiter and not returned (an oversight I suspect), and having seen them lately, I'm surprised anyone considers them useful at all.  They are trivially easy to counterfeit.  My birth certificate at least requires I get an embosser, which is slightly more difficult than running the Gimp and retouching scanned SS cards.  Getting good index stock is simpe enough also.

Arizona gets a load of criticism for permitting polls to require identification to vote.  Even utilitiy bills are adequate, IIRC.

In the U.S., voter fraud is roundly denied.  This strikes me as either a tacit denial to avoid exploring what is a measurable and potentially real problem, or a strategy to avoid scrutiny and so continue their shenigans.  I'm suspicious that voter fraud is a real problem, and we will eventually find out that close elections, becoming the norm, will be impacted.  Electronic voting is not the solution yet.  Nothing proposed in the U.S. is acceptable.

I'm on record as being fine with requiring ID to prove eligibility to vote.  I'm less fine with requiring proof of citizenship, via a mailed form with a 30-day turnaround time within three months of a vote.  Purging the dead from the rolls?  Fine, but citizenship should be handled when you register to vote.

It was a joke.  I'll try to keep my posts more serious in the future.

Not a hit on you.  I expect zyxwvutsr to jump on whatever he can no matter its relevance to the actual story, but since you reacted to that, too, instead of the larger story, I obviously failed.

Rubio in spanish means: blonde, fair.