ACLU and Demos Present Arguments at Supreme Court in Ohio Voter Purge Case
WASHINGTON — The American Civil Liberties Union and Dēmos presented arguments today to the Supreme Court in Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, a case focusing on Ohio’s practice of purging voters from its registration rolls. The groups argued that the Supplemental Process directly violates the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA).
Registrants are targeted for removal from the voter rolls after failing to vote in one election and could ultimately be removed if they do not vote in the following four-year period. The practice erroneously presumes that registrants’ failure to vote over a two-year period means that they have moved. In 2015 alone, hundreds of thousands of voters were removed under Ohio’s unlawful purge practice. Many of them arrived at the polls to vote only to learn that they were no longer registered.
The following comments are from:
Dale Ho, Director, ACLU’s Voting Rights Project: “Knocking eligible voters off the rolls simply because they exercise their right not to vote is illegal. That’s why the Court of Appeals struck down Ohio's voter purges, and the Supreme Court now has a chance to do the same.”
Freda Levenson, Legal Director, ACLU of Ohio: “Eligible voters should not be purged from the rolls. Period. State-sanctioned obstacles to the ballot box keep certain groups in power over others — and also violate the law.”
Paul Smith, Vice President of Litigation, Campaign Legal Center: “Ohio’s process denies eligible individuals their right to vote, attacking the very heart of our democracy. The NVRA allows states to remove a voter’s name from the rolls only if the voter has become ineligible, and it specifically prohibits states from removing infrequent voters.”
Stuart Naifeh, Senior Counsel, Dēmos: “Voting allows for the people of this great nation to have their voices heard. Ohio’s Supplemental Process is an affront to democracy and undermines confidence in our democratic system.”
Chris Knestrick, Executive Director, Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless: “All Americans, regardless of whether or not they have a permanent residence, deserve the opportunity to participate in our democracy. Homeless Americans should have the same rights to partake in our electoral process and have their voices heard.”
Andre Washington, President, Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute: “Voter purges, like Ohio’s Supplemental Process, disproportionately affect low income voters and voters of color who face countless barriers to casting their ballot. We should be working to make voting easier, not more difficult, for Americans that want to participate in the electoral process.”
This statement is at: /news/aclu-and-demos-present-arguments-supreme-court-ohio-voter-purge-case
More information is at: /cases/husted-v-philip-randolph-institute
Voting Rights
Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute
Voting Rights
Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Voting Rights
Election Day is Over. Why is the Electoral College Voting Now?Election Day is Over. Why is the Electoral College Voting Now?
The Electoral College meets December 17th to certify the results of the 2024 election, but why? The ACLU breaks down if the process is worth keeping. -
New York Supreme CourtDec 2024
Voting Rights
New York Communities for Change v. Nassau CountyNew York Communities for Change v. Nassau County
This case in New York state court centers on the landmark John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York (NYVRA) and the New York Municipal Home Rule Law (MHRL). The NYVRA, like several other state voting rights acts enacted in recent years, expands upon the federal Voting Rights Act’s protections against racial vote dilution. The MHRL prohibits racial discrimination and partisan gerrymandering in local-level redistricting. The ACLU’s Voting Rights Project and State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the New York Civil Liberties Union, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Steptoe LLP filed a lawsuit on behalf of voters of color in Nassau County, New York alleging that a redistricting plan implemented in 2023 for Nassau County’s legislative districts dilutes the voting strength of Black, Latino, and Asian residents and is gerrymandered for partisan advantage in violation of the NYVRA and the MHRL. -
ArizonaNov 2024
Voting Rights
American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona v. RicherAmerican Civil Liberties Union of Arizona v. Richer
We sued elections officials in Arizona to extend the mail ballot “cure” deadline after ballot processing delays threatened to disenfranchise thousands of voters without notice. -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
Voting Rights
Civil Rights Groups Respond to Flawed Trial Court Opinion on New York Voting Rights ActCivil Rights Groups Respond to Flawed Trial Court Opinion on New York Voting Rights Act
ORANGE COUNTY, Calif. — On November 7, a New York State Supreme Court trial judge issued an opinion striking down the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York (NYVRA). Today, the Legal Defense Fund, American Civil Liberties Union, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, New York American Civil Liberties Union, and Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law issued the following statement in response to the ruling: “The NYVRA is unquestionably constitutional, and protects the freedom to vote for all New Yorkers by helping to ensure voters are not subjected to discrimination when participating in the political process. “The Nov. 7 decision by a state trial judge is deeply flawed and plainly incorrect. We fully expect the decision to be reversed on appeal. It flies in the face of basic legal principles and constitutes a stunning overreach in striking down the entire law, including provisions that are not at issue in the case. “To put it simply, the NYVRA does not discriminate, it bans discrimination – and in doing so protects New Yorkers’ most fundamental right. “New York is stronger when everyone has an equal opportunity to vote.”