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

Lawsuit Filed Against Missouri Over State Motor Vehicle Agency’s Failure to Provide Federally-Mandated Voter Registration Services

Secretary of State, Department of Revenue in Knowing Violation of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – The League of Women Voters of Missouri and the St. Louis and Greater Kansas City Chapters of the A. Philip Randolph Institute today filed a lawsuit against the state of Missouri for failing to comply with federal voting rights law that ensures Missourians have access to voter registration and that their registration records are accurately updated. Voting rights watchdogs Dēmos, Advancement Project’s national office, and the ACLU jointly represent the Plaintiffs. Today’s lawsuit alleges that the…

Read More
Following Appeals Court Ruling in Vote v. Louisiana, Advocates to ask Louisiana Supreme Court to Affirm Right to Vote

VOTE v. Louisiana, a Case Filed by People on Probation or Parole Demanding their Right to Vote, Will Move Closer to Victory as Plaintiffs Prepare to Take Fight to Louisiana Supreme Court and the Legislature Baton Rouge – Today, the Louisiana Court of Appeal for the First Circuit affirmed dismissal of litigation in VOTE v. Louisiana, which challenges the constitutionality of a law barring voting by people on probation and parole. In doing so, the appellate court repeats the mistake made by lower courts that the plaintiffs, Voice of the Experienced (VOTE), hope to rectify once and for all in…

Read More
Take Action on Voting Rights Bills HB 265 & HB 417

People with criminal records face a lot of gatekeeping every day. From employers to landlords to the state government, formerly incarcerated people who are back in their communities are judged and rejudged all the time, despite having served their sentences. By being so stigmatized and having inalienable rights such as the right to vote taken away from us, we are being pushed to behave anti-socially. This legislative session, there are many bills that could alter this reality–some for better, some for worse. Here are two that are up to bat next Wednesday, April 11. Help us take action now! Read…

Read More
The Fire Still Burns: #WeAreTheFirefighters

To the fires that are still burning and the firefighters – advocates, policymakers, organizers – who are working tirelessly to put them out.

Read More
Support Voting Rights: Pass HB 265

TAKE ACTION: Formerly Incarcerated People Are Fighting to Pass a Voting Rights Bill in Louisiana

Read More
The Take Back #003: Marching for Our (Black and Brown Lives)

The newsletter of resistance for people of color.

Read More
For the Love of the Sheroes in My Life: A Short Poem on Power

I honor the incredible women in my life –both family and friends who have taught me the ABCs of being a "shero.”

Read More
Oral Arguments Week: Supporting the Right to Vote in Louisiana

More than 70,000 people in Louisiana are being deprived of their right to vote.

Read More
Right to Vote in Louisiana

Our fight for rights restoration

Read More
The Take Back #002 – #StillDreaming Edition

The newsletter of resistance for people of color.

Read More