About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

67 Clev. St. L. Rev. 485 (2019)
Notice, Due Process, and Voter Registration Purges

handle is hein.journals/clevslr67 and id is 511 raw text is: NOTICE, DUE PROCESS, AND VOTER REGISTRATION PURGES ANTHONY J. GAUGHAN** ABSTRACT In the 2018 case of Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, a divided United States Supreme Court upheld the procedures that Ohio election authorities used to purge ineligible voters from the state's registration lists. In a 5-4 ruling, the majority ruled that the Ohio law complied with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) as amended by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). This Article contends that the controlling federal law-the NVRA and the HAVA--gave the Supreme Court little choice but to decide the case in favor of Ohio's secretary of state. But this article also argues that the Ohio procedure fails to constitute good public policy even though it complies with federal law. Accordingly, this Article concludes with a set of modest proposals for reforming the notification process used in list maintenance procedures. CONTENTS I. IN TRO DUCTION .................................................................................................. 485 II. THE NVRA AND THE OHIO SUPPLEMENTAL PROCESS ...................................... 488 1I1. SCOTU S RULES FOR OHIO ............................................................................. 495 IV. A POST-HUSTED REFORM AGENDA ................................................................. 502 V . THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE .............................................................................. 511 VI. CONCLUSION: THE FUTURE OF VOTING RIGHTS .............................................. 520 1. INTRODUCTION One of the most controversial rulings of the 2017-18 Supreme Court term was Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute.' In a 5-4 decision, the Court's conservative majority upheld an Ohio election statute that establishes the State's procedure for identifying and removing ineligible voters from the State's voting rolls.2 The statute's challengers claimed that the Ohio list maintenance procedure--known as the Supplemental Process-purged thousands of eligible voters in violation of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) as amended by the Help America * Professor of Law, Drake University Law School; J.D. Harvard Law School, 2005; Ph.D. (history) University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2002. 1 138 S. Ct. 1833 (2018); see also Jeffrey Toobin, The Supreme Court's Husted Decision Will Make It More Difficult for Democrats to Vote, THE NEW YORKER (June 11, 2018), https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-supreme-courts-husted-decision-will- make-it-more-difficult-for-democrats-to-vote (arguing that the Husted decision will be viewed as a tool to purge disfavored voters from state voting rolls). 2 Husted, 138 S. Ct. at 1848 (We have no authority to second-guess Congress or to decide whether Ohio's Supplemental Process is the ideal method for keeping its voting rolls up to date. The only question before us is whether it violates federal law. It does not.).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most