Voting Rights and Democracy

Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al.

In Husted v. Randolph Institute, the Supreme Court is considering whether Ohio’s practice of purging voters who are registered to vote in federal elections from voter rolls based on a registrant’s failure to vote violates the National Voting Rights Act (NVRA).

Case Summary

In Ohio, a registered voter will receive a confirmation notice from the state if he or she fails to vote within a two-year period. If the voter fails to respond to the notice and then does not vote within the next four years, Ohio will nullify that person’s voter registration and require that he or she register again. In 2016, the A. Phillip Randolph Institute filed suit in U.S. District Court, claiming that this practice violates the NVRA, which prohibits states from removing “any person from the official list of voters registered to vote in an election for Federal office by reason of the person’s failure to vote.” The district court upheld Ohio’s voter purge. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision. Ohio asked the Supreme Court to hear the case, and it agreed to do so.

CAC filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Supreme Court on behalf of the Randolph Institute, rebutting Ohio’s claim that a narrow reading of the NVRA is required to avoid constitutional problems. In our brief, we argue that the text and history of the Elections Clause, which gives Congress final say over the mechanics of federal elections, was included in our nation’s charter to ensure that the states do not interfere with the people’s right to vote for their federal representatives. In enacting the NVRA, Congress used its Elections Clause authority to prohibit purges targeting inactive voters, concluding that such state action imposed an unjustifiable barrier to the right to vote in federal elections. The NVRA’s command reflects the basic constitutional principle that individuals may not be stripped of their fundamental rights – including the right to vote – because they do not exercise them. Ohio’s practice of purging voter rolls on the basis of voter inactivity thus cannot be squared with either the NVRA or the constitutional principle that it reflects.

Case Timeline

More from Voting Rights and Democracy

Voting Rights and Democracy
February 9, 2018

OP-ED: Pa. Republicans are assaulting the rule of law in gerrymander fight

Harrisburg Patriot-News (
Republicans in control of the PA legislature gerrymandered the state’s congressional districts, seeking to entrench their party...
By: David H. Gans
Voting Rights and Democracy
U.S. Supreme Court

Benisek v. Lamone

In Benisek v. Lamone, the Supreme Court is considering whether Maryland’s partisan gerrymandering of its congressional districts violates the guarantees contained in the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Voting Rights and Democracy
September 9, 2014

The Future of Voting Rights

Host: Federalist Society
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, which disabled Section 5 of the Voting...
Participants: David H. Gans
Voting Rights and Democracy
U.S. Supreme Court

Gill v. Whitford

In Gill v. Whitford, the Supreme Court is considering whether Wisconsin’s extreme partisan gerrymandering of its State Assembly districts violates the guarantees contained in the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
Voting Rights and Democracy
October 28, 2017

Don’t purge voters for choosing not to vote

Akron Beacon Journal
President Donald Trump’s so-called election integrity commission — stocked with voting rights foes — wants...
By: David H. Gans
Voting Rights and Democracy
October 4, 2017

OP-ED: Justice Kennedy, The First Amendment, and Partisan Gerrymandering

Take Care Blog
Over the course of three decades on the Supreme Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy has developed...
By: David H. Gans