| Husted v. Randolph Institute | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued January 10, 2018 Decided June 11, 2018 | |
| Full case name | Jon A. Husted et al. v. A. Philip Randolph Institute et al. |
| Docket no. | 16-980 |
| Citations | 584 U.S. ___ (more) 138 S. Ct. 1833; 201 L. Ed. 2d 141 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. Husted, 838 F.3d 699 (6th Cir. 2016); cert. granted, 137 S. Ct. 2188 (2017). |
| Holding | |
| Both the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 and the Help America Vote Act of 2002, as prescribed by law in 52 U.S.C. § 20507, permit Ohio to have a list-maintenance process that removes people from the state's on the basis of inactivity. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Alito, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Gorsuch |
| Concurrence | Thomas |
| Dissent | Breyer, joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan |
| Dissent | Sotomayor |
| Laws applied | |
| 52 U.S.C. § 20507 | |
Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, No. 16-980, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States regarding Ohio's voter registration laws.[1] At issue was whether federal law, 52 U.S.C. § 20507,[2] permits Ohio's list-maintenance process, which uses a registered voter's voter inactivity as a reason to send a confirmation notice to that voter under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 and the Help America Vote Act of 2002. If the mail is not returned, the voter is stricken from the rolls, a practice called voter caging. The Court ruled in a 5–4 decision that Ohio's law did not violate federal laws.[3][4][5]
- ^ Docket
- ^ 52 U.S.C. § 20507.
- ^ Whitaker, L. Paige (July 24, 2018). Supreme Court Rules Ohio Voter Roll Law Comports with National Voter Registration Act (PDF). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Retrieved September 8, 2018.
- ^ Epps, Garrett (June 12, 2018). "Politics: The Supreme Court Blesses Voter Purges". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on May 2, 2020. Retrieved May 2, 2020.
- ^ Hasen, Richard L. (June 11, 2018). "Jurisprudence: Sonia Sotomayor's Dissent in the Big Voter-Purge Case Points to How the Law Might Still Be Struck Down". Slate. Archived from the original on May 2, 2020. Retrieved May 2, 2020.