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

Replacing Criminalization and Disenfranchisement with Citizenship and Voting Rights

Dissent is seen as a threat and we are getting into very dark times where hate is normalized and fascism is endorsed. This latest threat out of the White House is very dangerous and rooted in xenophobia and eugenics. At a time where the nation is reeling from a week of loss and hate crimes, when the world is experiencing the highest level of displaced people, Trump lashes out with intimidation. This is the erosion of the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act and takes us centuries back to the shameful beginnings of America.

Read More
NEW POLLING: Voting Behavior and The Impact of The Black Vote in 2018 Mid-term Elections

Washington, DC — Today, the NAACP and Advancement Project national office joined with the African American Research Collaborative to provide the first comprehensive analysis of how Black voters voted this cycle and why. The new poll of mid-term voters, conducted by the African American Research Collaborative (in collaboration with Latino Decisions and Asian American Decisions), examines African American voters across various competitive elections to determine how this electorate engaged in 2018 and how these findings might shape the future of elections. The key takeaway of this poll is clear: mid-term 2018 wins across the country were dependent on voters of…

Read More
POLLING WEBINAR: Advancement Project, NAACP, African American Research Collaborative Discuss Voting Behavior, Impact of Black Vote in 2018 Mid-term Election

2018 wins across the country were dependent on voters of color, particularly Black voters. For greater wins, policymakers will need to invest in communities of color and the issues that matter most to these constituents.

Read More
What to Do if You Experience Intimidation at the Polls

If you’re a voter wondering what you should do if you feel intimidated or targeted at the polls, you are not alone.

Read More
Advancement Project’s National Office Successfully Assists with Election Day Filing of Georgia Litigation to Extend Polling Hours

State Officials Grant Extension Due to Long Lines, Voting Equipment Technical Difficulties

Read More
In Historic Win, Florida Restores Voting Rights to Returning Citizens

In an historic mid-term election, Florida residents voted in favor of state constitutional Amendment 4, which will automatically restore voting rights to 1.4 million people with felony convictions on their record. The ballot initiative received support from at least 60 percent of Florida voters – the needed amount to amend the state’s constitution. Advancement Project’s national office has been heavily engaged in dismantling disenfranchising policies alongside partners, New Florida Majority, SEIU, and Florida Rights Restoration Coalition (FRRC). “This is an historic moment for Florida and our country. Florida voters have spoken and extended the right to vote to citizens…

Read More
Advancement Project part of nation’s largest election protection program; voter protection advocates prepared to assist Missouri voters

This non-partisan effort in Missouri, organized by Advancement Project’s national office, a leading voter protection organization, is part of the nation’s largest Election Protection program, designed to assist any voters with questions or issues on Election Day.

Read More
Louisiana Supreme Court Denies Case Seeking Right to Vote for Parolees and Probationers

Organizers Move to Ensure Access to Ballot Under New Law

Read More
Appeals Court Rules that Advancement Project, ACLU Challenge to Missouri Voter ID Implementation Must be Heard

Quite simply, Missouri has failed to put its money where its mouth is. Because of that, the Court is going to allow this case to go to trial. We look forward to our further day in court.”

Read More