吃瓜大本营

WASHINGTON 鈥� In a 5-4 ruling in Husted v. APRI, the Supreme Court today upheld an Ohio voter purge practice that removes infrequent voters from the registration rolls.

鈥淰oters should not be purged from the rolls simply because they have exercised their right not to vote. This ruling is a setback for voting rights, but it is not a green light to engage in wholesale purges of eligible voters without notice," said Dale Ho, director of the ACLU鈥檚 Voting Rights Project.

In APRI, Ohio asked the Supreme Court to overturn a federal appeals court decision that found an Ohio practice of targeting registrants who have not voted in a two-year period for removal from the voter rolls 鈥� when there is no evidence that the voter has become ineligible 鈥� violates a federal law known as the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). The court assented to Ohio鈥檚 request, holding that the state鈥檚 process does not violate the NVRA鈥檚 prohibition on using non-voting as a basis for canceling registrations because, although the state indeed targets eligible voters who have not voted recently, non-voting is not 鈥渢he sole criterion鈥� for removing a registrant.

鈥淭oday鈥檚 decision threatens the ability of voters to have their voices heard in our elections,鈥� said Stuart Naifeh, senior counsel at Demos, which led the legal team challenging the state鈥檚 practices. 鈥淭he fight does not stop here. If states take today鈥檚 decision as a sign that they can be even more reckless and kick eligible voters off the rolls, we will fight back in the courts, the legislatures, and with our community partners across the country.鈥�

鈥淭o have a healthy and functioning democracy, we must increase 鈥� not restrict 鈥� access to the ballot,鈥� said Andre Washington, president, Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute (APRI). 鈥淧ractices, like Ohio鈥檚, that remove eligible but infrequent voters from the registration rolls disproportionately disenfranchise low-income voters and voters of color.鈥�

In 2015 alone, hundreds of thousands of infrequent voters were purged from Ohio鈥檚 voter rolls. Over 40,600 registrants in the state鈥檚 largest county, Cuyahoga, were removed under the process allowed by the Supreme Court today. The majority of these registrants lived in low-income communities and communities of color.

鈥淭he Supreme Court decision to allow Ohio to purge its citizens from the rolls is a setback for voting rights nationwide,鈥� said Paul Smith, vice president of Campaign Legal Center (CLC). 鈥淥ur democracy weakens when states are permitted to take actions that discourage voter participation. By constructing obstacles that make voting more difficult, Ohio is sending the wrong message to its citizens.鈥�

鈥淐ountless voters, including homeless and housing-insecure Ohioans, have already been stripped of their rights as a result of Ohio鈥檚 unjust and illogical purge process,鈥� said Chris Knestrick, executive director, Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless (NEOCH). 鈥淏y greenlighting Ohio鈥檚 purge process, the court allowed states to shut out the voices of these voters.鈥�

D膿mos and the ACLU of Ohio first filed suit on behalf of Ohio APRI, NEOCH, and Ohio resident Larry Harmon in 2016, prevailing in the circuit court and securing relief that protected the right to vote for purged Ohio voters in November 2016 and every other election in the state to date.

鈥淭oday鈥檚 decision is a blow, not just to Ohio voters, but to the democratic process. Giving the green light to Ohio鈥檚 purge process could have a ripple effect across the entire country. Despite this setback, the court鈥檚 decision will not hinder our current and future advocacy efforts. Marginalized populations remain extremely vulnerable to state-sanctioned voter suppression and disenfranchisement, and we will continue to fight to uphold the rights of eligible voters in the 2018 midterm elections, and beyond,鈥� said Freda Levenson, legal director at the ACLU of Ohio.

The ruling is at: /legal-document/husted-v-philip-randolph-institute-supreme-court-ruling

More information is at: /cases/husted-v-philip-randolph-institut