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

For Us By Us: Racial Justice Champions Fund the Movement

Colin Kaepernick and Jesse Williams Show Up for Racial Justice

Read More
Colin Kaepernick Puts Money Where His Mouth Is

Advancement Project is one of last organizations to receive portion of $1 million donation from former football player, social justice advocate

Read More
Another attempt by politicians to decide who gets to vote went before the U.S. Supreme Court.

If they have their way, state officials will kick citizens off of the voter rolls simply for not voting in two consecutive elections.

Read More
Pence-Kobach “Election Integrity” Commission Shuts Down

The decision to dissolve the Pence-Kobach Commission reiterates what we already know: voter fraud is a farce.

Read More
On civil rights, we must reimagine freedom after Trump

The year since the election has been challenging. But this moment also presents us with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reimagine and rebuild.

Read More
Why do we strip some of the right to vote?

Not all freedom is equal. On July 4th, we remember the millions of people who are deprived of the right to vote even after their imprisonment has ended. As our partners @VOTENola say, the culture of criminalizing people and then taking their right to vote is firmly rooted in the Jim Crow era Watch Norris Henderson, Executive Director of VOTE, reflect on what it’s like to be deprived of full citizenship and the right to vote.

Read More
Advancement Project Files Appeal Brief Seeking to Restore Right to Vote In Louisiana

Louisianans believe in second chances and giving people the opportunity to do the right thing.

Read More
Statement on Florida Supreme Court Ruling on Gov. Scott’s Power Grab

No one can thwart the will of a people determined to effect change.

Read More
Statement from Advancement Project on Pence-Kobach Commission Meeting

We should take down barriers to the ballot and make elections more fair and accessible.

Read More