Dahlia Lithwick, Legal Writer, Explains the Ohio Voter Purge Case

As already noted, on January 10, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Husted v Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, 16-980, the case over whether Ohio is complying with federal law relative to purging voters. Dahlia Lithwick, legal correspondent for Slate, here explains this case, from the viewpoint on the side of the Randolph Institute. This is a confusing case, but she makes it easier to understand. Thanks to Howard Bashman for the link.


Comments

Dahlia Lithwick, Legal Writer, Explains the Ohio Voter Purge Case — 2 Comments

  1. If you sought your explanation in theatrics, rather than the law, her explanation would make it easier to understand the case.

    The procedure was used when Jennifer Brunner wss Secretary of State. The District Court found for the state. The case was prolonged because the district court found the notice from the State was too polite. It said that the voter might be purged if they failed to vote during the next four years, when in fact they would be purged. The reasoning was that some voters, might think, maybe they will, maybe they won’t, and besides maybe I’ll vote. And then the voter might think, “is that a bon bon over there under the chair”? The notice also did not explain to voters who had moved out of Ohio how they could register to vote at their new residence. After the State had modified the notice, the case was appealed to the 6th Circuit, which reversed on a 2:1 decision.

    Congress could simply change the statute, rather than letting a bunch of judges guessing what Congress may have meant. Or Ohio could simply send a non-forwardable notice to every voter, and use the ones that are returned by the USPS as evidence that someone has moved, and trigger the rest of the procedure. Or Congress could provide for a national ID card.

  2. How many States have the no forward notice stuff

    — are sane and not New Age insane ???

    Where is that Model Election LAW since 1776 ???

    Perhaps SCOTUS should automatically say that the OLDest law applies in all statutory conflicts —

    — to force the Congress hacks to clarify — add, amend or repeal the OLD law.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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