My interpretation of that provision was a bit broader — “repeated removals due to inactivity” doesn’t just apply to people who repeatedly join without participating, but also applies to anybody who participates earnestly, if intermittently, but ends up occasionally missing an election. Frankly, I may want to refrain from voting myself if I simply don’t wish to support any of the candidates — unless I just missed the provisions about having RON as a candidate, which is also very possible. (Oh, and if that is indeed absent, I’d be interested in hearing your reasoning behind that.)
More broadly, I would assume there are many metrics by which registration officials can judge whether an applicant is applying in good faith, and I’m not sure why this one in particular should be codified into law. I do agree with you that repeated inactivity can be a sign that an applicant is not applying in good faith, and I don’t mind giving our registration officials the option to consider that — but I’m not sure why that option wouldn’t exist without this provision.
I do worry that codifying it specifically into law could increase the pressure to vote for the sake of keeping one’s status, and not out of a genuine desire to participate in our democratic processes. Even if it’s bending the truth, the potential threat of being labeled a bad-faith applicant (with technically no expiration date) could encourage unengaged voters to participate simply to keep their status lest they find themselves barred from participation if they ever become more interested in the future. I think there’s a risk there of voters simply voting for the leading candidate, or for whoever they see others voting for, or for whoever reaches out to them first.
I’d personally consider becoming the Chair in some cases of vacancy to be a responsibility that should have some form of accountability, but if your intention is that the Assembly would have recall power once the Dean becomes the Chair, I’d be amenable to that.