An Insider’s View of Today’s SCOTUS Arguments on Voter Purging in Ohio - Advancement Project - Advancement Project

An Insider’s View of Today’s SCOTUS Arguments on Voter Purging in Ohio

by Andrew Hairston

January 10, 2018

Earlier today, the Supreme Court of the United States held the oral argument for Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute. This case concerns the maintenance of states’ voter rolls under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA).

Originating in Ohio, the primary issue of the case concerns whether a state can use a voter’s inactivity to purge that voter from the state’s rolls. The state of Ohio maintained that these federal statutes supported its procedure, known as the Ohio Supplemental Process; the A. Philip Randolph Institute argued that the Supplemental Process violates the NVRA & HAVA. Advancement Project filed an amicus brief in this case that focused on how Ohio’s past racially discriminatory voting practices may have contributed to the inactivity that was at the heart of the controversy in this case.

During today’s oral argument, counsel for the Ohio Secretary of State, the Solicitor General of the United States, and counsel for the A. Philip Randolph Institute delivered remarks on behalf of their clients. The attorney for the Secretary of State attempted to justify the Supplemental Process by associating the use of the Supplemental Process with the possibility of identifying voters who moved. Throughout the argument, this premise proved to be tenuous at best.

Of note, while questioning the lawyer for the Ohio Secretary of State, Justice Sonia Sotomayor discussed the ostensible disproportionate impact of this purging process on minority voters. She pointed to Ohio’s elimination of Golden Week — a voter registration drive that benefited a number of Black and Brown people in the state as one reason that a voter may choose to not vote. She also expressed the negative impact of long hours and extensive lines on voter participation for people of color. She subsequently noted that there is a strong argument for discriminatory impact in this case.

The solicitor general offered the government’s perspective in the case, and Justice Sotomayor conveyed another concern. Since the passage of the NVRA in the early 1990s, Democratic and Republican presidential administrations have maintained a consistent position on the statutory interpretation of these statutes. However, under the leadership of this current administration, the Justice Department shifted its position on the matter. Justice Sotomayor noted how unusual it was for the Office of the Solicitor General to change its perspective so drastically. Several minutes later, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg chimed in and reaffirmed that the prior position of the United States was that non-voting is not necessarily a reliable indicator that a person moved.

During his argument, the lawyer for A. Philip Randolph Institute emphasized that the Ohio Supplemental Process relies on six years of non-voting and leads to the vast over-purging of voters. Following a line of questioning from Justice Stephen Breyer, he noted that 70 percent of people who received the confirmation notice from the state of Ohio did not respond to it; moreover, he stressed that this did not mean that they necessarily moved. As counsel for the Ohio Secretary of State delivered his rebuttal, a concluding troubling point emerged purged voters receive no notice once they are officially removed from the rolls.

Following this action-packed oral argument, my colleagues at Advancement Project and I anxiously await the Court’s decision in the case in a few months.

Andrew Hairston is staff attorney for Advancement Project and helped write the amicus brief associated with Husted v. APRI.

KEEP READING

There is opportunity in darkness. Let the movement lead the way.

There is an opportunity in this darkness for us to organize deeper and wider, tapping the incredible energy we have seen in the streets, at the courts and at our state houses.

Read More
Advocates File Lawsuit Urging Florida Secretary of State Detzner to Extend Voter Registration Deadline In Wake of Hurricane Michael

Advancement Project's national office is suing the state of Florida seeking a statewide extension of the voter registration deadline to Tuesday, October 16.

Read More
The Lasting Impact of Felony Disenfranchisement

Returning Citizens are coming back to communities that are under-resourced and suffer from low incomes.

Read More
Florida’s Black Neighborhoods Burdened by Lower Socio-Economic Conditions Linked to Returning Citizens’ Voting Disenfranchisement

Our new report shows a link between the numbers of Returning Citizens and lower-income levels, employment and education rates, and higher child poverty rates in Black neighborhoods

Read More
Democracy Disappeared

How Florida Silences the Black Vote through Felony Disenfranchisement

Read More
Webinar Series: How to Protect the Vote in 2018

Webinar series highlighting the election laws and regulations of five states.

Read More
From Chains to Change

Race and the Right to Vote in the Nation's Incarceration Capital (Live From Netroots Nation 2018)

Read More
Partisan Gerrymandering Still a Threat to Communities of Color

Gerrymandering is an intentional effort to maneuver the district lines in ways that limit the political voice of people of color.

Read More
Voting Rights Watchdogs Ask Court To Protect Missouri Voters Before Elections

Missouri Secretary of State, Department of Revenue in Knowing, Ongoing Violation of the National Voter Registration Act

Read More
Pass HB 265 in the Louisiana Senate

Groundswell of Grassroots Momentum for Rights Restoration Could Push HB 265 Over Finish Line as soon as this week – Take Action NOW!

Read More