138 S. Ct. 1833 (2018)
Husted v. A.
Does Ohio's voter roll maintenance procedure violate the National Voter Registration Act by removing voters based solely on their failure to vote?
The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) prohibits states from removing individuals from voter registration lists based solely on their failure to vote in recent elections. The Act aims to ensure that states maintain accurate voter rolls while protecting the voting rights of individuals, particularly those who may not vote regularly due to socioeconomic factors. The legal principle at stake is the interpretation of what constitutes permissible voter roll maintenance under the NVRA and the extent to which states can implement procedures that may lead to voter disenfranchisement.
The Supreme Court held that Ohio's voter roll maintenance procedures did not violate the National Voter Registration Act. The Court ruled that the state's practice of removing voters who had not participated in elections for a specified period was permissible under the NVRA. The majority opinion emphasized that the NVRA does not prohibit states from using voting inactivity as a basis for maintaining their voter registration lists, provided that the procedures are consistent with the Act's requirements.
Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute is a landmark case that has significant implications for election law and voter rights in the United States. The ruling affirmed the ability of states to maintain their voter registration lists based on voting inactivity, which has raised concerns about potential voter suppression tactics. For law students, this case illustrates the ongoing tensions between state authority in managing elections and the federal protections established to safeguard voting rights.