SCOTUS upholds Ohio's voter purge law

Post Reply New Topic

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld Ohio election rules that allow the cancellation of voter registrations for citizens who haven’t voted in two years and don’t confirm their eligibility.

The ruling revives the battleground state’s process for managing its voter rolls after an appeals court invalidated it in 2016. Voting-rights challengers said the state’s approach was among the strictest in the nation.

Federal law prohibits states from disqualifying people because they don’t vote, but it also pushes states to maintain accurate registration lists by removing individuals who have moved, died or otherwise lost eligibility to vote at their registered. addresses.

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, ruled that Ohio’s approach was lawful. The case split the court along ideological lines, with conservative justices in the majority and liberals in dissent.

The case has partisan implications because voter turnout tends to be lower in minority communities, making those citizens, who usually favor Democrats, more likely to be affected by state regulations that start the purge process by focusing on recent voting frequency.

More broadly, the dispute plays into a national debate between Republicans and Democrats over a push in some states to tighten the voting process. Republicans generally say such moves are necessary to combat voter fraud, while Democrats see them as a way to restrict voting by minorities and young people who tend to vote Democratic.

At issue was one of two methods Ohio uses to identify and purge from its voter rolls people who are no longer eligible because of a change in residence.

Under the process before the court, citizens who don’t cast a ballot for two years receive a state notice asking them to verify their eligibility. If they don’t respond, and also fail to vote in the next four years, Ohio cancels their registration.

Ohio has removed nearly 2 million voters from its rolls since 2011, with black voters more likely to be purged than white voters. A number of civil rights groups argued that the decision would likely aid Republicans but hurt Democrats and voters of color. Republicans typically have an advantage in low-turnout races.

Still, Alito wrote in his decision that Ohio had done its due diligence and "removes registrants only if they have failed to vote and have failed to respond to a notice."

"A state violates the failure-to-vote clause only if it removes registrants for no reason other than their failure to vote," he wrote.

Justice Stephen Breyer, who wrote the dissent opinion said that because most voters tend to ignore the notices they recieve, it's their faliure to show up to the polls that constitutes the main reason they're kicked off the rolls.

"More often than not, the state fails to receive anything back from the registrant, and the fact that the state hears nothing from the registrant essentially proves nothing at all," he explained.