Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-980_f2q3.pdf
Page Number: 56.0

Cite as:  584 U. S. ____ (2018) 

3 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

ineligible  voters 

from  the  registration 

  Of  course,  Congress  also  expressed  other  objectives,  “to 
protect  the  integrity  of  the  electoral  process”  and  “to  en-
sure that accurate and current voter registration rolls are 
maintained.”    §§20501(b)(3)–(4).*    The  statute  contem-
plates, however, that States can, and indeed must, further 
all  four  stated  objectives.    As  relevant  here,  Congress 
crafted  the  NVRA  with  the  understanding  that,  while 
States  are  required  to  make  a  “reasonable  effort”  to  re-
move 
lists, 
§20507(a)(4), such removal programs must be developed in 
a  manner  that  “prevent[s]  poor  and  illiterate  voters  from 
being caught in a purge system which will require them to 
needlessly  re-register”  and  “prevent[s]  abuse  which  has  a 
disparate  impact  on  minority  communities,”  S. Rep.  No. 
103–6, at 18. 
  Ohio’s  Supplemental  Process  reflects  precisely  the  type 
of  purge  system  that  the  NVRA  was  designed  to  prevent.  
Under the Supplemental Process, Ohio will purge a regis-
trant  from  the  rolls  after  six  years  of  not  voting,  e.g.,  sit-
ting  out  one  Presidential  election  and  two  midterm  elec-
tions, and after failing to send back one piece of mail, even 
though there is no reasonable basis to believe the individ-
ual  actually  moved.    See  ante,  at  14  (BREYER,  J., dissent-
ing).    This  purge  program  burdens  the  rights  of  eligible 
voters.    At  best,  purged  voters  are  forced  to  “needlessly 
reregister” if they decide to vote in a subsequent election; 
at  worst,  they  are  prevented  from  voting  at  all  because 
they  never  receive  information  about  when  and  where 

—————— 

* The  majority  characterizes  these  objectives  as  ones  to  “remov[e] 
ineligible  persons  from  the  States’  voter  registration  rolls,”  ante,  at  2, 
but  maintaining  “accurate”  rolls  and  “protecting  the  integrity  of  the 
electoral process” surely encompass more than just removing ineligible 
voters.    An  accurate  voter  roll  and  fair  electoral  process  should  also 
reflect  the  continued  enrollment  of  eligible  voters.    In  this  way,  the 
NVRA’s enhanced-participation and accuracy-maintenance goals are to 
be achieved simultaneously, and are mutually reinforcing.