Below you will find talking points and sample social content from SKDKnickerbocker for Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute voter purge case at this Supreme Court this session. Oral arguments will take place on January 10, 2018. A Twitter Town Hall on the case will take place Friday January 5 from 1-2 p.m. EST under the hashtag #ProtectMyVote.
Message Guidance: Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute
Topline Message:
Our democracy is strongest when every voice can be heard – when every eligible citizen can cast their vote and have it counted. Ohio’s illegal voter purge removes eligible voters from the rolls and denies them their constitutional right to vote. We are confident that the Supreme Court will affirm that the right to vote cannot be treated as a use-it-or-lose-it right.
Talking Points:
- The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) was signed into law in 1993, with bipartisan support, to protect the right to vote, increase the number of registered voters, and ensure that states properly maintain their voter rolls.
- One of the NVRA’s provisions requires states to maintain accurate and up-to-date voter rolls, and to protect voters from improper removal. The law allows states to remove a voter’s name from the rolls only if the voter has become ineligible, and it specifically prohibits states from removing voters for not voting.
- Accurate maintenance of the voting registry is important and necessary, however the accurate maintenance of voter rolls requires that states both retain the names of eligible people on the voter rolls and make a reasonable effort to remove individuals who have become ineligible. The State of Ohio is failing to meet these obligations.
- Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted has directed Ohio County Boards of Elections to remove infrequent voters from its rolls through a practice called the Supplemental Process.
- Ohio’s Supplemental Process, uses a registered voter’s failure to vote as evidence that the voter had moved.
- The Supplemental Process initiates a removal procedure whenever a registrant has failed to vote for a two-year period. Such voters are sent a notice in the mail and, if they do not respond to the notice or vote in the subsequent four-year period, their names are stripped from the registration rolls.
- The Supplemental Process has resulted in the erroneous removal of voters across the state who remain fully eligible to vote.
- The Process also unfairly places the burden of re-registration on voters whose eligibility has not changed.
- Many voters only vote in presidential elections, every four years. As a result, voters in Ohio often get caught up in the state’s purge practice time and time again – finding themselves under constant threat of being removed from the voter rolls.
- The most recent Supplemental Process purge occurred in 2015. In 2015, hundreds of thousands of Ohioans who had not voted since 2008 were removed from the voter registration list pursuant to the Supplemental Process, with over 40,000 purged in Cuyahoga County alone. Many of these voters went to the polls in November 2015 and March 2016 only to learn that their names no longer appeared on the rolls and ultimately were denied their right to vote.
- One of the clients in Husted v. APRI, Larry Harmon, was one of those Ohioans. Mr. Harmon voted in 2008 and was ultimately purged under the Supplemental Process, but did not learn he was off the rolls until he appeared at his polling place to vote in November 2015. Mr. Harmon had been voting since 1976 and had lived in the same home for more than a decade. However, when he went to vote, he was told he was not a registered voter.
- As the Sixth Court of Appeals held: The NVRA prohibits states, like Ohio, from initiating a process to remove voters from the rolls based on their failure to vote.
- We are confident that the Court will confirm Congress’ intent with the NVRA and the Sixth Circuit’s determination that the right to vote cannot be treated as a use-it-or-lose-it right.
- A diverse group of organizations and individuals filed 18 amicus briefs urging the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down the Ohio voter purge practice. Briefs have been signed by groups that include 17 former U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) officials; 12 states and the District of Columbia; 36 current and former Ohio election officials; historians; veterans and disability advocates; groups representing homeless voters, seniors, and individuals with limited English proficiency; and a number of other civil and voting rights organizations.
- Voting is the very foundation of our democracy, and we welcome the extraordinarily broad support that the amicus briefs provide in establishing that Ohio’s voter purge is unjust, unnecessary, and violates the law.
- At a time when there are approximately 50 million eligible citizens not registered to vote, it is critical that the Supreme Court concur with the Sixth Circuit and strike down Ohio’s illegal process to ensure that other states across the country are not able to unlawfully remove eligible voters from the rolls and deny them their constitutional right to vote.
Litigation History of Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute:
- In 2016, after having notified Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted that Ohio’s Supplemental Process violates the NVRA the public policy organization Dēmos and ACLU of Ohio brought a lawsuit on behalf of the Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute (APRI), the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless (NEOCH), and Ohio resident Larry Harmon.
- The lawsuit alleged that initiating a process to remove voters from the rolls based on no evidence that the voter has become ineligible other than the voter’s failure to vote violates the NVRA.
- In September 2016, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit struck down Ohio’s controversial purge of infrequent voters from its voter rolls.
- The Sixth Circuit found that Ohio’s Supplemental Process violates the NVRA by removing voters from the voter registration rolls merely because they did not vote.
- As a result of the Sixth Circuit’s ruling, the federal district court entered an injunction for the November 2016 presidential election that ultimately allowed more than 7,500 Ohio voters who had been purged under the Supplemental Process to cast a ballot. All of these people were eligible voters who would have been denied their right to vote had the injunction not been entered.
- In February 2017, Secretary Husted filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court requesting the Court review and overturn the Sixth Circuit’s decision. In May, the Supreme Court granted the petition. Oral arguments will be heard on January 10, 2018.
###
Case Fact Sheet: Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute
Ohio’s Attempt to Purge Our Democracy
The right to vote lies at the heart of our democracy. However, an Ohio voter purge practice known as the “Supplemental Process” strips eligible voters from the registration rolls and deprives them of this fundamental right.
The Supplemental Process is not mandated by state statute, but was established pursuant to directives issued by the Ohio Secretary of State. Pursuant to the Supplemental Process, Ohio election officials target voters for removal from the registration rolls based on their failure to vote “frequently” enough. Specifically, the Process requires counties to initiate a removal procedure targeted at any voter who has failed to vote in a two-year period, based on the presumption that a two-year period of inactivity indicates that a voter may have become ineligible to vote by reason of a change in residence. Based on that questionable assumption, Ohio targets these voters with a mailing requiring them to confirm that they are still eligible to vote. If the voter does not respond to the notice or vote in the subsequent four-year period, the voter’s name is stripped from the registration rolls.
Many voters only vote in presidential elections, every four years. That does not mean they have changed their address or lost their eligibility to vote – instead it could mean that they are less interested in mid-term and off-year elections. Additionally, conditions may exist that make it difficult for voters to make it to the polls to vote or that they had work or family responsibilities that made it difficult to vote in a particular election. Nonetheless, many voters in Ohio get caught up in the state’s purge practice time and time again – finding themselves under constant threat of being removed from the voter rolls. And, if a voter sits out a single presidential election cycle, they are in danger of being purged from the rolls, even if nothing about their eligibility to vote has changed.
In 2015, hundreds of thousands of Ohio voters who had last voted in 2008 were removed from the voter registration rolls, with over 40,000 purged in Cuyahoga County alone. Many of these voters—as well as voters who had been purged under Ohio’s Supplemental Process in previous years—went to the polls in November 2015 and March 2016 only to learn that their names no longer appeared on the rolls, and were denied their fundamental right to vote.
Case Background on Husted v. APRI
In 2016, after having notified Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted that Ohio’s Supplemental Process violates the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), the public policy organization Dēmos and the ACLU of Ohio brought a lawsuit on behalf of the Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute (APRI), the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless (NEOCH), and Larry Harmon, a Navy veteran who voted in 2008 but was ultimately purged under the Supplemental Process even though he was living at the same address and remained fully eligible to vote.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit struck down Ohio’s controversial purge of infrequent voters from its voter rolls in September 2016, finding that Ohio’s Supplemental Process violates the NVRA’s prohibition on removing voters from the rolls by reason of a voter’s failure to vote. The federal district court then entered an injunction covering the November 2016 presidential election that ultimately allowed more than 7,500 Ohioans purged under the Supplemental Process to cast a ballot and have it counted in that election. All of these people were eligible voters who would have been denied their right to vote had the injunction not been entered.
Secretary of State Jon Husted filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court requesting the Court review and overturn the Sixth Circuit’s decision. In May, the Supreme Court granted the petition. Oral arguments will be heard on January 10, 2018.
A diverse group of organizations and individuals filed 18 amicus briefs urging the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down the Ohio voter purge practice. Briefs have been signed by groups that include 17 former U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) officials; 12 states and the District of Columbia; 36 current and former Ohio election officials; historians; veterans and disability advocates; groups representing homeless voters, seniors, and individuals with limited English proficiency; and a number of other civil and voting rights organizations. The extraordinarily broad support that the amicus briefs provide establishes that Ohio’s voter purge is unjust, unnecessary, and violates the law.
What’s at Stake
- The right to vote is fundamental and preservative of all other rights. However, practices like Ohio’s Supplemental Process remove large numbers of eligible voters from the rolls and disenfranchise them.
- Ohio’s Supplemental Process strips voters who have properly registered from the voter rolls and unfairly places the burden of re-registration on voters whose eligibility has not changed.
- Voters purged under the Supplemental Process often do not realize that they have been removed from the registration rolls until they show up to vote—at which point it is too late to re-register and they find themselves denied their right to vote.
- Because circumstances exist that make it harder for traditionally marginalized persons—such as low-income individuals, hourly and wage workers, persons of color, individuals with disabilities, seniors, and persons with limited English proficiency—to make it to the polls and vote, practices like Ohio’s result in the disproportionate disenfranchisement of such individuals.
- Ohio’s Supplemental Process has to potential to impact electoral outcomes.
- In 2015 alone, hundreds of thousands of Ohioans were removed from the rolls pursuant to the Supplemental Process.
- Information released by Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted in December 2016, noted that 112 Ohio elections had been decided by a single vote or were tied in approximately the past three years.
- At present, approximately 50 million eligible citizens not registered to vote.
- It is critical that the Supreme Court strike down Ohio’s illegal process and prevent other states from adopting similar practices, which will only increase the number of eligible but unregistered voters.
Sample Tweets:
Ohio’s A. Philip Randolph Institute and @clevhomeless challenged Ohio’s Supplemental Process—a practice of purging infrequent voters. #ProtectMyVote
Today @Demos_Org and @ACLU urge #SCOTUS to stop Ohio’s Supplemental Process. #ProtectMyVote #HustedvAPRI
Our democracy is strongest when every voice can be heard – when every eligible citizen can cast their vote and have it counted. #ProtectMyVote
Ohio’s Supplemental Process uses a registered voter’s failure to vote as evidence that the voter had moved. #ProtectMyVote
.@Demos_Org & @ACLUOhio & @ACLU argue that Ohio’s voter purge is in direct violation of the National Voter Registration Act at #SCOTUS. #ProtectMyVote
Ohio’s illegal voter purge removes eligible voters from the rolls and denies them their right to vote. #ProtectMyVote
By targeting infrequent voters Ohio’s purge practice disproportionately impacts voters of color, low-income voters, and homeless voters. #ProtectMyVote
Voting is at the core of our democracy. We should be making it easier for Americans to vote not harder. #ProtectMyVote
It’s time for Ohio to respect the people’s right to vote and end its Supplemental Process. We all need to stand up for Ohioans at the #SCOTUS. #ProtectMyVote
So goes Ohio’s voter purge case—so goes the nation. #SCOTUS will decide whether the right to vote is a use-it-or-lose it right. #ProtectMyVote
Democracy 101: Eligible voters should NOT be disqualified. Which is exactly what @ACLUOhio @Demos_org & @ACLU will argue at #SCOTUS. #ProtectMyVote
Sample Facebook Posts:
Today the U.S. Supreme Court considers whether Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted’s practice of purging voters from the rolls for not voting often enough is in direct violation of the National Voter Registration Act and a threat to our democracy. #ProtectMyVote
Last year, we brought a case on behalf of the Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless, and Ohio resident Larry Harmon arguing that Ohio’s practice of purging infrequent voters from the registration rolls violates federal law. Today, we are before the U.S. Supreme Court urging it to strike down Ohio’s purge practice. #ProtectMyVote
Attempts to thwart the right to vote is a direct threat to our democracy. Today, Demos and ACLU and the ACLU of Ohio argue for the people of Ohio and their right to vote at the Supreme Court. #ProtectMyVote
