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

Trial Challenging Missouri’s Voter ID Law Set to Start Monday

CONTACT: Joshua Garner 240-326-3874 [email protected] JEFFERSON CITY, MO — In a case that could determine the fate of Missouri’s voter ID law, a coalition of local and national voter advocates kick off a trial Monday in a legal challenge to the implementation of that law. The trial will begin at 9 a.m. August 19 in Cole County Circuit Court before Judge Jon Beetem. At stake is Missourians’ fundamental right to vote. “States are not allowed to make an end-run around voting rights by imposing confusing and burdensome changes to the voting rules and then failing to ensure…

Read More
Advancement Project Turns 20

  Freedom Now! Freedom Forever! Attend our 20th anniversary celebration, Thursday, October 17. Buy Tickets Sponsor the Movement See sponsorship levels for our 20th anniversary celebration. Learn More Movement Lawyering Conference Join us on Wednesday, October 16, to learn about holistic strategies for racial justice movement lawyering. Learn More Looking into the Future In 2045, a majority of Americans will be people of color. The question is: are you ready to leverage your power?…

Read More
Enough is Enough

Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the majority opinion, "We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts."

Read More
Civil Rights Organization Vows to Continue Fight to Ensure All Eligible Floridians Can Register and Vote, Despite Efforts to Undermine Amendment 4

“This legislation is about deterring Floridians who are less likely to vote for the current crop of legislators from casting a ballot – and that means Black & Brown people."

Read More
It’s Shelby Week! Congress Must Pass H.R. 4 to Strengthen the Voting Rights Act

On this National Day of Racial Healing, we must recognize that people of color are not given the chance to heal from their past.

Read More
The Voting Rights Saga in Florida Continues

Judith Browne Dianis testifies at Congressional Hearing on the State of Voting Rights in Florida “As we’ve learned in Florida, it’s too late after the vote is taken and counted to protect the civil rights of people of color.  And the problem is, the federal government is not watching.” On Monday, May 6, 2019, Advancement Project National Office testified before the U.S. House Committee on Administration in Miami during a hearing on the status of voting rights in Florida. As Judith Browne Dianis, our executive director, detailed in her testimony, Florida is a battleground in…

Read More
Advancement Project National Office: ‘We Must Shed Light on Discriminatory Voting Practices Now’

National Civil Rights Organizations Launch WeVoteWeCount.org to Collect Stories of Voter Suppression, Drive Change Ahead of 2020 Presidential Election.

Read More
Because Justice Never Takes a Day Off

On April 28, 1999, Advancement Project National Office opened its doors. We were bright-eyed, yet already seasoned, ready to take on voting rights with a racial justice lens. We were winning cases and building a movement right out the door. Now that we have been addressing not only voting rights, but immigrant justice, criminal legal system issues and education justice for 20 years, some may ask what are we doing today to ensure the country’s next 20 years are freer for people of color? Glad you asked.

Read More
Amendment 4 Implementation Bills Are Yet Another Effort to Silence Voters

Florida lawmakers are intent on passing legislation that will undercut the passage of rights restoration for Floridians with prior felony convictions. Florida deserves better. Advancement Project National Office stands with the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition (FRRC) in opposing any Amendment 4 legislation that creates additional barriers to voting for Returning Citizens who would otherwise be eligible based on the passage of Amendment 4. Any legislation proposed should neither limit the rights created by Amendment 4 nor infringe upon the will of Florida voters. Florida’s current completion of sentence standard is built upon three basic components: A person has completed…

Read More
Voting Rights Restoration

The time is ripe to fundamentally reform our democracy.

Read More