Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute

Background

Ohio’s elections officials run a program to keep voter lists up to date by looking for people who stop voting. The State identifies people who have not shown any “voter activity” for about two years, mails them a preaddressed, postage-paid card asking them to confirm their address, and if they do not return the card and then fail to vote for about four more years the State removes them from the rolls. A civil-rights group and an Ohio resident sued, saying this process violates a federal law that forbids removing someone from the voter list “by reason of” failure to vote.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether Ohio’s program removes people solely because they do not vote. It concluded Ohio follows the federal change-of-residence rules and that the law forbids removal only when nonvoting is the sole cause of removal. Congress had already added a clarification in 2002 saying States may use the post-card-and-nonvoting procedures in the National Voter Registration Act. The majority held that Ohio does not remove anyone just for not voting; instead the State removes only when a person both fails to return the confirmation card and continues not to vote for the required period.

Real world impact

The decision reverses the Sixth Circuit and allows Ohio’s specific process to continue. It means states may use nonvoting as part of a multi-step test for suspected moves, but they still may not strike a name from the rolls solely because a person failed to vote. The ruling leaves to States and Congress how best to balance maintaining accurate rolls with protecting voter participation.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Thomas concurred, warning of constitutional concerns if States couldn’t use nonvoting as evidence. Justices Breyer and Sotomayor dissented, arguing the practice risks improper purges and disproportionately affects low-turnout and minority communities.