Term: 2017
Docket: 16-980
Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute
- Pro
16-980 HUSTED V. A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE DECISION BELOW: 838 F.3d 699 CERT. GRANTED 5/30/2017 QUESTION PRESENTED: This case considers the steps that States may take to maintain accurate voter- registration lists under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) and the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). These laws bar States from removing "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," but clarify that a State must remove a voter if the voter does not respond to a confirmation notice sent by the State and does not vote in the next two general federal elections. 52 U.S.C. §§ 20507(b)(2), 21083(a)(4)(A). Since 1994, as part of its general list-maintenance program, Ohio has sent voters who lack voter activity over a two-year period the confirmation notice that the NVR and HAVA both reference. If these voters do not respond to that notice and do not engage in any additional voter activity over the next four years (including two more federal elections), Ohio removes them from the list of registered voters and requires them to reregister if they otherwise remain eligible to vote. The Sixth Circuit held that this decades-old process violates §20507(b)(2) because Ohio uses a voter's failure to vote as the "trigger" for sending a confirmation notice to that voter. The question presented is: Does 52 U.S.C. § 20507 permit Ohio's list- maintenance process, which uses a registered voter's voter inactivity as a reason to send a confirmation notice to that voter under the NVRA and RAVA? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 16-3746
The U.S. Supreme Court case Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute (2017) revolved around Ohio's method of maintaining its voter registration lists, which involved sending a confirmation notice to registered voters who had not voted in two years. If the individual did not respond and did not vote over the next four years, their name would be removed from the list under assumption that they moved out of state or died. The A.Philip Randolph Institute argued this process violated the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), which prohibits states from removing individuals "by reason of the person’s failure to vote." However, in a 5-4 decision, SCOTUS ruled in favor of Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted stating that while NVRA prevents states from using non-voting as sole criteria for purging voters; it does allow them to use non-voting as part of broader procedure like Ohio's system.
In the dissenting opinion for Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, Justice Breyer argued that Ohio's process of removing voters from its rolls violated the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). He stated that a failure to vote should not be considered reliable evidence of a change in residence and thus was an inappropriate trigger for sending confirmation notices. The NVRA requires states to make a reasonable effort to remove ineligible voters from their lists, but it also protects eligible voters from being improperly purged. According to Justice Breyer, Ohio’s method did not strike this balance correctly because it disproportionately targeted minority and low-income communities who are less likely to respond to mailings or have stable residences. Furthermore, he noted that most people thrown off the voting rolls under this system were still residents who had simply chosen not to vote in recent elections.
