October Term 2017 · Docket 16-980

Can states purge voters who fail to vote for two years?

Ohio purges inactive voters. The A. Philip Randolph Institute argues this violates federal law.

Official caption
Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Eric Murphy argued Congress balanced increasing eligible voters and decreasing ineligible ones.

    General Francisco argued the 2002 amendment made Ohio's process clearer and permissible.

    Mr. Smith argued the supplemental process violates Section 8 of the NVRA in two ways.

    Justice Ginsburg noted the safe harbor provision relies on a change of address form, not non-voting.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

Ohio removes voters who do not cast ballots for two years. The A. Philip Randolph Institute claims this violates the National Voter Registration Act. The state argues the law allows this purge.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 10, 2018.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Ohio wants to keep its two-year inactivity purge rule.

The A. Philip Randolph Institute wants to stop the purge of non-voters.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Ohio argues the 2002 amendment clarified that inactivity purges are legal.

The A. Philip Randolph Institute argues the statute bans purging based on non-voting.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Sotomayor asked if the state needs the two-year failure to vote to use the notice.

Justice Kennedy asked if the state could rely only on specific statutory clauses.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines how states manage voter rolls. It determines if inactivity alone justifies removing registered voters from the list.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON