Supreme Court seems skeptical of blocking Ohio law that removes voters from rolls

[mahatmakanejeeves]

New title. Based on an existing thread. No need to start new thread.

Old title: SCOTUSblog's coverage of today's critical voting rights arguments.

Supreme Court seems skeptical of blocking Ohio law that removes voters from rolls

Link to tweet

Politics

Supreme Court seems skeptical of blocking Ohio law that removes voters from rolls

By Robert Barnes January 10 at 4:22 PM

Challengers of an Ohio law that purges voters who do not participate in consecutive elections or respond to a notice from state officials seemed to face an uphill battle Wednesday at the Supreme Court.

During oral arguments, only the court’s three most liberal justices seemed convinced that Ohio’s procedure violates a federal law that forbids rescinding registration because of a person’s decision not to vote. Challengers say the law has had an outsize impact among minority voters and in the state’s urban areas.

“The essence of this case,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, is whether Ohio’s process is “disenfranchising disproportionately certain cities where large groups of minorities live, where large groups of homeless people live, and across the country they’re the group that votes the least.”
....

The case is Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute.

Robert Barnes has been a Washington Post reporter and editor since 1987. He has covered the Supreme Court since November 2006. Follow @scotusreporter

Our own Paul Smith of @CampaignLegal is arguing the case this morning.

Link to tweet

.@SCOTUSblog preview of today's critical voting rights arguments. At stake: can states strip you from the voter rolls for *not* voting? CLC's Paul Smith will be arguing on behalf of our allies @acluohio @aclu @Demos_Org. #ProtectMyVote

Link to tweet

From January 4, 2018:

Argument preview: Justices to consider Ohio voter-purge practices

This case was first published at Howe on the Court.

Posted in Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, Featured, Merits Cases

Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Argument preview: Justices to consider Ohio voter-purge practices, SCOTUSblog (Jan. 4, 2018, 6:19 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/01/argument-preview-justices-consider-ohio-voter-purge-practices/

Today:

Edith Roberts Editor

Posted Wed, January 10th, 2018 7:28 am

Wednesday round-up

This morning the Supreme Court will hear argument in Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, in which the justices will consider whether Ohio’s voter-roll-maintenance process violates federal voter-registration laws. Amy Howe had this blog’s preview, which first appeared at Howe on the Court. Larry Blocho and Ryan Powers preview the case for Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. Subscript offers a graphic explainer. For USA Today, Richard Wolf reports that “{g}roups representing racial and ethnic minorities, veterans, and people with disabilities have joined the opposition in what’s become the latest in a series of battles against states’ efforts to restrict voting rights and combat alleged voter fraud.” Additional coverage comes from Nina Totenberg at NPR and Steven Mazie at The Economist’s Espresso blog.
....

Recommended Citation: Edith Roberts, Wednesday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Jan. 10, 2018, 7:28 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/01/wednesday-round-up-406/

[Hortensis]

1. "Ohio purges about twice as many Democrats as Republicans"

It's the address change trap, of course.

Younger voters move more compared to older.
So do less affluent versus affluent.
And so do people who live more progressive lives, embracing bigger and more varied worlds versus those who tend to avoid change.

[bettyellen]

2. Kick!