Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute

Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute is a landmark Supreme Court of the United States case that deals with voter registration and voter suppression. The case was brought by the A. Philip Randolph Institute, the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America, and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law against Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted. The case centers around Ohio's voter registration law, which allows the state to remove inactive voters from the voter rolls after a period of non-voting. This law was enacted by the Ohio General Assembly and signed into law by Ohio Governor John Kasich.

Background

The case has its roots in the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The law aimed to increase voter turnout and prevent voter suppression by making it easier for eligible voters to register. However, the law also allowed states to remove ineligible voters from the voter rolls. Ohio's voter registration law, which was enacted in 1994, allows the state to send a notice to voters who have not voted in two years, and if the voter does not respond or vote within four years, they are removed from the voter rolls. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the NAACP, and the League of Women Voters have all spoken out against the law, citing concerns about voter suppression and disenfranchisement. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference have also expressed concerns about the law's impact on African American voters and low-income voters.

Procedural History

The case was first filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio in 2016 by the A. Philip Randolph Institute and other civil rights organizations, including the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation and the Ohio State Conference of the NAACP. The plaintiffs argued that Ohio's voter registration law violates the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 and the Help America Vote Act of 2002, which was signed into law by President George W. Bush. The case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The state of Ohio then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which agreed to hear the case. The Solicitor General of the United States, Noel Francisco, filed a brief in support of Ohio's voter registration law, while the Attorney General of the United States, Jeff Sessions, filed a statement in support of the law. The National Association of Secretaries of State and the National Association of State Election Directors also filed briefs in support of the law.

Supreme Court Decision

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in a 5-4 decision that Ohio's voter registration law does not violate federal law. The majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, held that the law is a legitimate attempt to maintain the accuracy of the voter rolls. The opinion cited the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 and the Help America Vote Act of 2002 as evidence that Congress intended to allow states to remove ineligible voters from the voter rolls. The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Stephen Breyer, argued that the law disproportionately affects low-income voters and minority voters, and that it violates the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. The ACLU and the NAACP expressed disappointment with the decision, while the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the Heritage Foundation expressed support for the decision. The American Conservative Union and the Federalist Society also praised the decision.

Impact and Reception

The decision has been widely criticized by civil rights organizations, including the ACLU, the NAACP, and the Southern Poverty Law Center. The League of Women Voters and the Common Cause have also expressed concerns about the decision's impact on voter turnout and voter suppression. The decision has been praised by conservative organizations, including the Heritage Foundation and the American Conservative Union. The National Association of Secretaries of State and the National Association of State Election Directors have also expressed support for the decision. The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law has estimated that the decision could lead to the removal of hundreds of thousands of eligible voters from the voter rolls. The Center for American Progress and the Democracy 21 have also expressed concerns about the decision's impact on democracy and voting rights.

Aftermath and Legacy

The decision has significant implications for voting rights and voter suppression in the United States. The ACLU and the NAACP have vowed to continue fighting against voter suppression and disenfranchisement. The League of Women Voters and the Common Cause have also pledged to continue working to protect voting rights. The decision has been cited as an example of the Supreme Court of the United States's conservative leanings, and has been criticized by liberal and progressive organizations, including the Center for American Progress and the Democracy 21. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference have also expressed concerns about the decision's impact on African American voters and low-income voters. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation have vowed to continue fighting against voter suppression and disenfranchisement. Category:United States Supreme Court cases