Divided Supreme Court: States can purge voters
5-4 decision says Ohio didn’t violate federal law
WASHINGTON – Failing to vote can lead to getting knocked off voter registration rolls, a deeply divided Supreme Court ruled Monday in a decision that likely will help Republicans and hurt Democrats.
The court’s conservative majority ruled 5-4 that Ohio did not violate federal laws by purging voters who failed to vote for six years and did not confirm their residency – considered to be the strictest such law in the nation.
The ruling protects similar laws in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Oregon, Oklahoma, West Virginia and Montana.
Civil rights groups had challenged Ohio’s procedure for cleaning up voter registration rolls because it disproportionately affects minorities, the poor and people with disabilities. The Trump administration reversed the position taken by its predecessor and sided with Ohio.
Justice Samuel Alito noted in his majority opinion that an estimated one in eight voter registrations in the United States is invalid or inaccurate. He said failing to vote cannot be the sole reason for purging voters but that Ohio “removes registrants only if they have failed to vote have failed to respond to a notice.”
“A state violates the failure-to-vote clause only if it removes registrants for no reason other than their failure to vote,” Alito said. By contrast, he said, Ohio waits six years before removal, following federal law “to the letter.”
Justice Stephen Breyer penned an 18-page dissent for the liberal wing of the court. Rather than focusing on messy voter rolls, he recited the history of literacy tests, poll taxes and other restrictions he said were designed to “keep certain groups of citizens from voting.”
Breyer noted that most voters simply ignore the warning notices, leaving their failure to vote as the principal cause for being purged from the rolls. The number who don’t vote or return notices far exceeds the number who actually have moved, he said.
The ruling could be a victory for Republicans, who tend to benefit from lower voter turnout, and a loss for Democrats, who do best in high-turnout elections. That’s because minorities, young people and those with lower incomes are most likely to be disenfranchised by the state’s policy.
The case was the latest in a series of battles against attempts by some states to restrict voting rights and combat alleged voter fraud. Most of the states that backed Ohio have Republican governors or legislatures; most of those opposed are governed by Democrats.