Supreme Court Upholds Ohio's Voter Roll Maintenance Procedures Under NVRA and HAVA

Introduction

In the landmark case of Jon Husted, Ohio Secretary of State, Petitioner v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. (138 S. Ct. 1833, 2018), the United States Supreme Court addressed the legality of Ohio's voter roll maintenance procedures. The key issue centered on whether Ohio's method of removing voters who failed to respond to a notice and did not vote in subsequent elections complied with the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). The parties involved included Jon Husted, representing the Ohio Secretary of State, and the A. Philip Randolph Institute, among other respondents, advocating for voter rights and opposing Ohio's removal tactics.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court, with Justice Alito delivering the opinion of the Court, reversed the Sixth Circuit's decision that had previously ruled Ohio's voter removal process unconstitutional. The Court held that Ohio's "Supplemental Process" for maintaining accurate voter rolls did not violate federal law. Specifically, the Court determined that Ohio's method of identifying and removing voters—based on non-response to a return card and failure to vote in subsequent elections—was consistent with the NVRA and HAVA. The decision clarified the interpretation of the NVRA's Failure–to–Vote Clause, affirming that States can use nonvoting as a factor in voter removal processes as long as it is not the sole reason.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Supreme Court relied on several precedents to underpin its decision. Notably, the case Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc., 570 U.S. 1 (2013), was pivotal in establishing that the NVRA imposes federal regulations atop state voter registration systems. Additionally, references to Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009), and Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009), among others, were instrumental in defining the standards of causation and statutory interpretation relevant to the Failure–to–Vote Clause.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's legal reasoning focused on interpreting the Failure–to–Vote Clause within the NVRA. The majority opinion emphasized that the clause prohibits States from removing voters solely based on their failure to vote. However, it clarified that removal is permissible when nonvoting is coupled with non-response to a confirmation notice, thereby ensuring that nonvoting is not the lone criterion. The Court methodically dismissed alternative interpretations that suggested a broader prohibition on using nonvoting as a trigger for sending notices, asserting that such readings were inconsistent with both the statutory language and Congressional intent as clarified by HAVA.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for voter registration processes nationwide. By upholding Ohio's approach, the Supreme Court reinforced the authority of States to implement voter roll maintenance systems that incorporate nonvoting as a factor, provided it is not the sole reason for voter removal. This precedent supports the continued use of similar methods in other jurisdictions, potentially leading to widespread adoption of enhanced voter purging mechanisms. However, it also underscores the necessity for States to ensure their processes remain compliant with federal mandates to avoid disenfranchisement risks.

Complex Concepts Simplified

National Voter Registration Act (NVRA): A federal law enacted in 1993 aimed at enhancing voter registration efforts and maintaining accurate voter rolls across States.
Help America Vote Act (HAVA): Passed in 2002, this act sought to reform various aspects of the electoral process, including voter registration, voting systems, and election administration.
Failure–to–Vote Clause: A provision within the NVRA that prohibits States from removing voters solely based on their failure to participate in elections.
Supplemental Process: Ohio's specific method for maintaining voter rolls, which involves sending notices to inactive voters and removing them if they fail to respond or vote in subsequent elections.
Subsections (c) and (d): Specific parts of the NVRA that outline the procedures States must follow to verify changes in voter residency and remove ineligible voters accordingly.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Jon Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute serves as a definitive interpretation of the NVRA and HAVA regarding voter roll maintenance. By affirming the legality of Ohio's Supplemental Process, the Court delineated the boundaries within which States can operate to ensure accurate voter registrations without infringing upon voters' rights. This ruling not only clarifies federal law but also sets a precedent that may influence future legislative and judicial approaches to voter registration integrity and election administration.