Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-980_f2q3.pdf
Page Number: 13.0

10 

HUSTED v. A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE 

Opinion of the Court 

clause  as  originally  enacted.    At  that  time,  the  clause 
simply  said  that  a  state  program  “shall  not  result  in  the 
removal  of  the  name  of  any  person  from  the  [rolls  for 
federal elections] by reason of the person’s failure to vote.”  
107 Stat. 83.  But that prohibition had to be read together 
with  subsection  (d),  which  authorized  removal  if  a  regis-
trant  did  not  send  back  a  return  card  and  also  failed  to 
vote during a period covering two successive general elec-
tions  for  federal  office.    If  possible,  “[w]e  must  interpret 
the  statute  to  give  effect  to  both  provisions,”  Ricci  v. 
DeStefano,  557  U. S.  557,  580  (2009),  and  here,  that  is 
quite easy. 
  The  phrase  “by  reason  of ”  denotes  some  form  of  causa-
tion.  See Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U. S. 
167, 176 (2009).  Thus, the Failure-to-Vote Clause applies 
when nonvoting, in some sense, causes a registrant’s name 
to  be  removed,  but  the  law  recognizes  several  types  of 
causation.    When  a  statutory  provision  includes  an  unde-
fined  causation  requirement,  we  look  to  context  to  decide 
whether  the  statute  demands  only  but-for  cause  as  op-
posed  to  proximate  cause  or  sole  cause.    See  Holmes  v. 
Securities  Investor  Protection  Corporation,  503  U. S.  258, 
265–268  (1992).    Cf.  CSX  Transp.,  Inc.  v.  McBride,  564 
U. S. 685, 692–693 (2011). 
  Which  form  of  causation  is  required  by  the  Failure-to-
Vote Clause?  We can readily rule out but-for causation.  If 
“by reason of ” in the Failure-to-Vote Clause meant but-for 
causation, a State would violate the clause if the failure to 
vote  played  a  necessary  part  in  the  removal  of  a  name 
from the list.  Burrage v. United States, 571 U. S. 204, 211 
(2014).    But  the  removal  process  expressly  authorized  by 
subsection (d) allows a State to remove a registrant if the 
registrant,  in  addition  to  failing  to  send  back  a  return 
card,  fails  to  vote  during  a  period  covering  two  general 
federal  elections.    So  if  the  Failure-to-Vote  Clause  were 
read in this way, it would cannibalize subsection (d).