Supreme Court allows Ohio, other state voter purges

Supreme Court allows Ohio, other state voter purges

Supreme Court allows Ohio, other state voter purges

The plaintiffs in the case, Husted v A. Philip Randolph Institute, had argued the OH law violated the National Voter Registration Act - that "just as you have a right to vote, you have a right not to vote", claiming the state's purges violate federal law and risk disenfranchising eligible voters.

Voters who return the card or show up to vote over the next four years after they receive it remain registered. In 2012, neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney excited him, so he decided not to vote.

"In 2014, 59 percent of Ohio's registered voters failed to vote", and this fact should not trigger a process to remove them from the rolls, he said. "Failure to vote or update their information for two more general elections results in cancellation".

Harmon has lived at the same address for more than 16 years but doesn't ever remember receiving such a letter.

Ohio's practice of deeming voters ineligible affects tens of thousands of voters in the state - many from low-income communities who might move more frequently than more affluent voters. "Our democracy rests on the ability of all individuals, regardless of race, income or status, to exercise their right to vote". "They don't take away my right to buy a gun if I don't buy a gun".

By a 5-4 vote that split the conservative and liberal justices, the court rejected arguments in a case from OH that the practice violates a federal law meant to increase the ranks of registered voters. The court said that nationwide, 24 million voter registrations are estimated to be inaccurate or invalid, mostly of people who have moved.

Justice Samuel Alito said for the court that OH is complying with the 1993 National Voter Registration Act.

Justice Samuel Alito, however, noted that an estimated one in eight voter registrations in the US are invalid or inaccurate, according to USA Today.

"Democracy suffers when laws make it harder for US citizens to vote", top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer said.

One of Richardson's first acts as secretary was to make it more hard to purge inactive voters. If a voter doesn't cast a ballot or engage in other "voter activity" such as updating a registration form for two years, the state sends a notice asking for confirmation of eligibility; if the voter doesn't respond or doesn't vote in the next four years, he or she is removed from voter rolls.

"We have no authority to second-guess Congress or to decide whether Ohio's Supplemental Process is the ideal method for keeping its voting rolls up to date", Alito said.

"Communities that are disproportionately affected by unnecessarily harsh registration laws should not tolerate efforts to marginalise their influence in the political process, nor should allies who recognise blatant unfairness stand idly by", added Sotomayor, the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice. That could be, however, for myriad reasons and not only because of voter purging.

He called such charges "misconceived" and said that she had not pointed to "any evidence in the record that OH instituted or has carried out its program with discriminatory intent".

The dissent, which was joined by the court's other liberal-leaning justices, noted that only 4 percent of Americans move outside the county they live in each year, and that in 2012, OH identified 1.5 million registered voters - almost 20 per cent of the state's total - as likely to be ineligible, because they had changed their addresses.

"Yes", she responded. "To the extent that I speak frankly in my decisions, and directly, it's because I want people to understand what I am saying, not in legal terms, but in legal terms that touch the heart". He is the co-editor of "Election Law Stories" and is now writing a new book on positive voting rights expansions.

"The right to vote is not 'use it or lose it, ' Carson said". That essentially is what the court is allowing OH to do.

Related news