Supreme Court to Hear Voter Roll Case: What are the Implications? Page: 1 of 3
3 pages.View a full description of this report.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Congressional
Research Service Legal Sidebar
Informing the legislative debate since 1914
Supreme Court to Hear Voter Roll Case: What
Are the Implications?
L. Paige Whitaker
Legislative Attorney
January 9, 2018
In what has been called a "potentially major case on voting rights," on January 10, 2018, the U.S.
Supreme Court is to hear oral argument in Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute. Husted involves the
question of whether an Ohio process for removing or "purging" names from its official voter registration
lists violates the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). Specifically, the "Supplemental Process" for
voter roll maintenance at issue in Husted involves the Ohio secretary of state's office's removal of a
registered voter's name from the state voter rolls if the individual-after a two-year period of voter
inactivity-does not vote for four more years (including two general federal elections), and does not
either (1) respond to a mailed confirmation notice or (2) reregister to vote. (Not at issue in Husted, Ohio
also has a primary process for voter roll maintenance that utilizes the postal service's change-of-address
system.) At the same time, the NVRA prohibits states from removing an individual's name from its voter
rolls for federal elections "by reason of the person's failure to vote," while directing them to "conduct a
general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official
lists of eligible voters by reason of' death or relocation. In 2016, by a 2 to 1 vote, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Sixth Circuit) held that Ohio's Supplemental Process violated the NVRA
because the "trigger" for its process of voter roll purging is "ultimately based 'solely' on a person's failure
to vote." The anticipated Supreme Court ruling in this case, in addition to resolving the Ohio dispute, will
likely clarify whether five states with similar laws comport with the NVRA and may impact who is
eligible to vote in Ohio (and possibly other states) in the 2018 federal election cycle. A decision is
expected by June 2018.
National Voter Registration Act
Husted involves the Court's interpretation of section 8 of the NVRA and provisions of the Help America
Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). These laws set forth a series of statutory requirements and exceptions that
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
LSB10053CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Conaress
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This report can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Report.
Whitaker, L. Paige. Supreme Court to Hear Voter Roll Case: What are the Implications?, report, January 9, 2018; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1094437/m1/1/: accessed July 16, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.