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

Advancement Project National Office Statement on the Passage of the Voting Rights Advancement Act

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 4, the Voting Rights Advancement Act. The legislation restores key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and helps prevent racial discrimination in voting. Advancement Project National Office, a national racial justice and civil rights organization, released the following statement: “We are encouraged by the House’s passage of critical voting rights legislation that will help eliminate discrimination in voting,” said Judith Browne Dianis, Executive Director of Advancement Project National Office. “When the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in 2013, it significantly…

Read More
A World Free of Voter Suppression

Gilda Daniels, Advancement Project’s Litigation Director is author of the new report: "We Vote We Count: the Need for Congressional Action to Secure the Right to Vote for all Citizens." Listen as she talks voter suppression in the 21st Century.

Read More
Racial Justice Organizations Release “We Vote We Count” Report  

The "We Vote We Count" Report highlights barriers to voting for communities of color in states across the country.

Read More
Missouri Voting Rights Advocates Achieve Legal Victory Expanding Statewide Access to Voter Registration

Missouri voting rights advocates celebrated a significant victory making it easier for state residents to exercise their fundamental right to vote.

Read More
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

  6–10 p.m. EST* Freedom Now! Freedom Forever!Attend our 20th anniversary celebration, Thursday, October 17. Buy Tickets Sponsor the MovementSee sponsorship levels for our 20th anniversary celebration. Learn More Movement Lawyering ConferenceJoin us on Wednesday, October 16, to learn about holistic strategies for racial justice movement lawyering. Learn More Looking into the…

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