Husted v. A Philip Randolph Institute
Decision Presents a Danger to Democracy
What Happened
Ohio resident Larry Harmon set off to the polling station to vote in the 2015 state election to vote against an initiative that would have legalized marijuana in the state. But to his surprise, he was no longer a registered voter in the state of Ohio. Harmon, a military veteran that’s lived in Ohio for his entire life, admits that he hadn’t voted in recent elections, but had never rescinded his registration.
A decision by Secretary of State Jon Husted and Republican lawmakers led hundreds of thousands of people, including Harmon, to be removed from the voting polls in an effort to ensure all active registrations were accurate. If a person fails to participate in two elections, they are sent a letter in the mail asking them to confirm their address. If they don’t respond to the letter, they are removed from the registration list without notice.
A federal court of appeals had previously ruled that Ohio couldn’t continue with the practice of removing voters from the records. Ohio then appealed the decision to the Supreme Court arguing that their process of removing the voters was not based solely on not voting.
This clear case of voter suppression was brought to the Supreme Court by a local Ohio voting rights advocacy firm. Last week in a 5-4 decision, the nation’s highest court ruled that the Ohio state law was constitutional.
In the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the law stands because Ohio’s reason for purging the voters is not solely based on the not voting, but rather the failure to respond to a subsequent notification asking to confirm their address. If the law were solely based on not voting, the court contends that law would be unconstitutional. Because the letter addressed to residents informed them both of the consequences of not responding and the overall concern voter fraud, the Supreme Court says that it did not violate the National Voter Registration Act as decided by the prior federal court ruling.
Why This Decision Matters
The Supreme Court made a dangerous decision by ruling in favor of the Ohio government in this case. While the majority opinion outlines that states cannot remove voters from the records without warning or due cause, the decision will allow for more states to work around the stipulations to suppress voting rights in the many ways now deemed allowable by the nation’s highest court.
With this decision, it is crucial to stay vigilant to any further efforts from state or federal legislators to undermine voting rights. Republicans have made it more than clear that they don’t care about the right to vote if the person supports the Democratic Party. By supporting these laws, the GOP helps affirm their power in assuring that their voters have easier access to the polls.
Every person deserves the right to vote. It doesn’t matter if someone has skipped a few elections or if they’ve voted every single time since they turned 18. While it is true that the voters were given warning in Ohio, the minuscule number of responses to the letter prove it to be an insufficient method of assuring accuracy in the registration records. While the state received 60,000, or roughly four percent, of cards back confirming that the voter had moved, there were over 500,000 notices that received no response at all.
It is unreasonable to assume that this large number of voters wanted to be kicked off of the registration records. It is much more likely that they either forgot to respond to the notice or never even received it. The right to vote should not come with requirements or added steps, but Ohio made it clear they care very little for ensuring its citizens have the opportunity to exercise their voice.
Justice Sotomayor said it best in her dissent against the majority. This law specifically targets low-income and minority voters. Swiftly dismissed by Justice Alito as a mere policy disagreement, Sotomayor wrote of the history of voter suppression and the impact that historically disenfranchised groups feel by laws that make it more difficult to vote. Her empowering words detail the precise predicament this decision will put hundreds of thousands of voters in this midterm season.
Jon Husted and the supporters of this law may fail to see the danger, but those already reluctant to participate in the democratic process will only feel more ignored by this decision. As conservative states follow suit with this ruling and make their own attempt at suppressing inconsistent voters for their own grotesque political gain, the need for voting rights activism is more important now than ever.
How We Can Fight Back
Progressive Turnout Project’s mission to target inconsistent Democratic voters is directly harmed by this decision and we won’t stand for any policy that negatively impacts the constitutional rights of any American. By failing to play fair, Republicans have solidified their party’s image as the antithesis of everything the United States is supposed to stand for.
It is within our power to hold legislators that approve of these laws accountable. And when these laws surface in other states, we must call for further judicial review and protest this erosion of constitutional rights at every step. Democrats are much more likely to disapprove of these laws than Republicans. This gives us another reason why taking back the House is so vital. But because these laws begin in state legislatures, it is crucial to keep an eye on what’s happening at home. Our sister organization, Progressive Takeover does vital work to increase Democratic turnout at the state level. By voting blue down ticket in both this and all upcoming elections, we can ensure that discriminatory voting laws are never passed.
The midterm elections are still 141 days away, but we don’t have to wait to until then to take action. We can continue to petition our state legislatures to revoke these laws otherwise we will vote them out. It is also crucial we stay on top of the exact requirements of this legislation so we can be one step ahead at all times. By becoming informed, we will have the necessary knowledge to fight against these laws that promote voter suppression. Purge laws are not the only problematic legislation being passed in states across the United States. There are also voter ID laws with varying degrees of severity in 34 of 50 states that also seek to diminish and devalue the rights of voters at every step. By placing extra requirements on the most basic right in any democracy, the government is effectively creating a country in which only a selected number of residents are able to participate in the political process. Republican legislatures have simply proven that they don’t want everyone to vote to better serve their own misguided ideals.
We can also fight these laws by making sure everyone is aware of them. Often times, a voter may not even know of the exact ID requirements or that the purge law even exists. As politically active and engaged individuals, it is our duty to provide this information to those that need it. By remaining involved in the fight against voter suppression, we can combat the pending ramifications of the SCOTUS decision in every way. Our power is in our vote, our voice, and our action. When we use all of these together, we will come out on top in the end.
