RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Lerner writes: "With its ruling Monday upholding Ohio’s practice of removing infrequent voters from its rolls, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for the mass disenfranchisement of low-income, minority voters across the country."

A rally outside of the Supreme Court building. (photo: Tom Williams/CQ/Roll Call)
A rally outside of the Supreme Court building. (photo: Tom Williams/CQ/Roll Call)


The Supreme Court Just Cleared the Way for the Mass Disenfranchisement of Voters

By Kira Lerner, ThinkProgress

11 June 18


Large numbers of voters could be blocked from casting ballots in November if they haven't participated in recent elections.

ith its ruling Monday upholding Ohio’s practice of removing infrequent voters from its rolls, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for the mass disenfranchisement of low-income, minority voters across the country.

In a 5-4 ruling, Justice Samuel Alito found that the National Voter Registration Act does not prevent Ohio from purging from the rolls voters who do not participate in federal elections for two years. If inactive voters do not respond to a mailer asking them to verify their address and do not vote for two more years, they are purged from the rolls.

The ruling will have implications beyond Ohio.

“Today’s decision threatens the ability of voters to have their voices heard in our elections,” said Stuart Naifeh, senior counsel at Demos, which challenged the state’s practices.

Six other states — Georgia, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania and West Virginia — use similar practices to remove voters from the rolls if they fail to vote. A total of 17 GOP-controlled states signed onto a brief supporting Ohio’s position, indicating that they would be interested in using a similar list-maintenance procedure if it’s found to be constitutional.

With the approval of the Supreme Court, more states are likely to begin discriminatory purges like Ohio’s, and more states will likely remove a disproportionate number minority, low-income, and housing-insecure voters — people who are more likely to support Democrats. Those voters are more likely to move frequently and not respond to mailers asking them to verify their registration status.

The ACLU of Ohio noted that the ruling will “have a ripple effect across the entire country,” and other advocates warned of the impact in November.

“With the midterm election season now underway, we will remain vigilant as we expect that officials will read this ruling as a green light for purging the registration rolls in their community,” Kristen Clarke, president and executive director for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said in a statement.

Chris Knestrick, executive director of the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless, — an organization named as a plaintiff in the lawsuit — said the impact will be especially hard on homeless and housing-insecure Americans.

“By greenlighting Ohio’s purge process, the court allowed states to shut out the voices of these voters,” he said.

The case, Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, was filed on behalf of Ohio voters like war veterans Larry Harmon and Joe Halle, who both missed elections and then were told they could not participate in subsequent ones.

Halle told ThinkProgress Monday that he feels for the people who could find out in upcoming elections that they are no longer registered.

“Today’s ruling doesn’t serve justice,” he said. “It doesn’t help better American and it certainly doesn’t help the institution of voting. It only does damage.”

Between 2011 when it implemented the policy and 2016, Ohio purged roughly 1.2 million people from the rolls for voting infrequently. Surveys of Ohio’s voting lists have found that “voters have been struck from the rolls in Democratic-leaning neighborhoods at roughly twice the rate as in Republican neighborhoods,” according to Reuters.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit sided with the voters, saying that Ohio violated the NVRA. But in the Supreme Court’s ruling, Alito disagreed, finding that the Court has “no authority to second-guess Congress or to decide whether Ohio’s Supplemental Process is the ideal method for keeping its voting rolls up to date,” he wrote. “The only question before us is whether it violates federal law. It does not.”

In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that the majority’s ruling “ignores the history of voter suppression” that led to the passage of the NVRA and will force minority and low-income voters and their advocates to be “proactive and vigilant in holding their states accountable and working to dismantle the obstacles they face in exercising the fundamental right to vote.”

“Our democracy rests on the ability of all individuals, regardless of race, income, or
status, to exercise their right to vote,” she wrote.

Halle, the current mayor of Oak Harbor, Ohio and current candidate for a seat on Ohio’s state legislature, said the ruling energizes him more for his campaign.

“If the court isn’t going to balance the scales of justice, then I’ll do it myself,” he said.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
0 # librarian1984 2018-06-11 17:23
So why did Obama and the Democrats let Mitch McConnell steal a SCOTUS appointment? They let it sit there FOR A YEAR. That is going to have far-reaching repurcussions.

Four years is too short. It should be ten years -or- they should mandate same day registraion for both parties.
 
 
0 # lfeuille 2018-06-12 19:52
I don't think they had the majority so there wasn't anything they could do at that point. The real question is why did they continue with they neoliberal con game while they were steadily loosing support and loose the majority.
 
 
0 # Benign Observer 2018-06-13 07:13
Mitch McConnell accomplished A LOT when he was in the minority. Obama was in the right and had the bully pulpit. He could have hammered away every day until Congress was pressured to act.

Do you think a Republican president would have let that appointment sit for a year?

Making excuses for our feckless, spineless politicians does no one any favors. Seriously, we need to pressure them to act.
 
 
+4 # Moxa 2018-06-11 20:58
The shamelessness of the Republicans knows no bounds. They are worse than even the Democrats, and that is saying a great deal.
 
 
+5 # BetaTheta 2018-06-11 21:19
This Supreme Court is proving the most destructive of individual citizens' rights since the late 19th century. Then, as now, many justices were drawn from the corporate world. The Gilded Age Court was packed with ex-railroad attorneys who co-opted the 14th amendment protecting ex-slaves, and turned it into a vehicle to push corporate "rights."
 
 
+2 # LionMousePudding 2018-06-12 03:39
Two years? So Everyone who only votes in Presidential elections will be kicked off before the next one. As Republicans also often miss midterm elections, will we see their communities targeted as well?
 
 
+3 # RLF 2018-06-12 05:00
It's time for reporters to start looking closely at the sexual harassment and corruption sides of the justices...we need to impeach a couple of these guys that are so incredibly ignorant.
 
 
0 # sashapyle 2018-06-12 20:33
Clarence Thomas is a worthless piece of crap, but there is no use trying to get him off the Court when Trump would find someone even stupider to put in his place. We need this Administration GONE so someone with half a brain can appoint the next round of judges.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN