Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute

The case challenged Ohio's supplemental process for maintaining its voter rolls. The state would flag registered voters who had not engaged in any voter activity for two years, send them a confirmation notice, and if the notice was not returned and the voter failed to vote in the next two federal election cycles, their registration was cancelled. The A. Philip Randolph Institute, along with Larry Harmon and other groups, sued Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted, arguing the procedure violated the National Voter Registration Act's prohibition on removing voters simply for not voting. The Supreme Court considered whether the use of non-voting as the trigger for the notice process conflicted with federal law. The decision ultimately addressed the balance between preventing voter fraud, maintaining accurate rolls, and protecting eligible citizens from disenfranchisement.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Ohio, holding that the state's process does not violate the National Voter Registration Act. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, found that the removal was not solely by reason of a failure to vote, but also because the voter failed to return the notice and did not vote in the subsequent elections, thereby satisfying the statutory requirement that removal not be based solely on non-voting.

Whether Ohio's voter removal procedure violates the National Voter Registration Act's provisions that bar states from removing registrants solely by reason of their failure to vote, when the process uses a failure to vote as the initial trigger for sending a confirmation notice, but removal is ultimately based on the failure to respond to that notice and subsequent non-voting over four federal election years.

The ruling gave states broader authority to aggressively purge their voter rolls, leading to widespread concerns about potential voter suppression, particularly among minority, low-income, and homeless populations who may be more transient and less likely to receive or respond to mailed notices. Critics argued it would accelerate disenfranchisement of eligible voters, while supporters claimed it was necessary to protect election integrity by removing ineligible or deceased registrants. The decision intensified the national debate over voting rights, spurring advocacy groups to push for both automatic voter registration and legal challenges to aggressive purges.