U.S. Supreme Court Will Hear Oral Argument in Ohio Voter Purge Case on January 10, 2018

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear Husted v Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, 16-980, on January 10, 2018. This is the case over whether Ohio has been in violation of a federal law by purging voters too frequently. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the news.


Comments

U.S. Supreme Court Will Hear Oral Argument in Ohio Voter Purge Case on January 10, 2018 — 6 Comments

  1. That is not the issue.

    States are required by federal law to keep their voting rolls up to date, removing/updating voters who have moved or died. But not all voters tell election officials when they move.

    If a state can not contact a voter at their last mailing address, they may put them on the so-called inactive list. An “inactive” voter may be purged if they miss the next two federal elections. If an “inactive” voter shows up to vote, they are handed a ballot, and removed from the “inactive” list. They do not have to vote provisionally.

    Federal law also prohibits states from purging voters for not voting. There is a contradiction here.

    Ohio initiates the process of placing voters on the inactive list if they don’t vote during a two-year period. They attempt to contact the voter, and if that fails, the voter is placed on the inactive list.

    The federal district court agreed with the Ohio procedure. The district court had some quibbles with the Ohio procedure, such as the initial notice saying the voter “might” be removed from voting rolls. Someone “might” ignore the notice and not vote for four more years. Ohio modified the notices.

    The 6th Circuit overturned the district court decision, “reasoning” that initiating the process of determining if a voter had moved, which might ultimately four years later, result in removal from the voting rolls, was purging a voter for not voting.

    The issue for the SCOTUS is how to interpret the federal statutes (plural). The USDOJ says that Ohio is following the law.

    In theory, Congress could simply clarify the statutes, but that would require action by the Congress.

  2. Supposedly the most recent law applies [ALWAYS – on ANY subject]

    — but the courts (esp. appointed SCOTUS hacks) love to split hairs {esp. stuff about NOT having laws repealed or amended by *implication*).

    Many times the Congress hacks *clarify* a USA law AFTER the SCOTUS hacks have their *opinion* — wasting more time and effort.

    That is what oligarchs do — since the 1776-1789 regime changes.

  3. @Demo Rep,

    That is what happened here.

    Congress established the procedure for purging certain voters after they had not voted in two elections, after they had passed a law that said voters could not be purged for failure to vote.

    The 6th Circuit’s thinking is so convoluted, that most reporting of the case is wrong.

    It is noteworthy that the US Solicitor General will be arguing on behalf of Ohio. The US Government does not believe that Ohio is violating federal statute, nor does the primary agency for enforcing US election laws, the USDOJ, believe so.

  4. The USA Congress gerrymander hacks love to pass 1,000-10,000 page bills which no body reads and about which earlier laws are ignored — ie the index of earlier laws.

    Quite amazing the bureaucrats try to enforce any laws — since the laws may be unconstitutional or have been amended or repealed — such that any such enforcement may be super-illegal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.