Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-980_f2q3.pdf
Page Number: 24.0

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

21 

Opinion of the Court 

NVRA—but instead accuses us of “ignor[ing] the history of 
voter  suppression”  in  this  country  and  of  “uphold[ing]  a 
program  that  appears  to  further  the  . . .  disenfranchise-
ment  of  minority  and  low-income  voters.”    Post,  at  5.  
Those charges are misconceived. 
  The  NVRA  prohibits  state  programs  that  are  discrimi-
natory, see §20507(b)(1), but respondents did not assert a 
claim under that provision.  And JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR has 
not  pointed  to  any  evidence  in the record  that  Ohio  insti-
tuted  or  has  carried  out  its  program  with  discriminatory 
intent. 

* 

  * 

  * 
  The  dissents  have  a  policy  disagreement,  not  just  with 
Ohio,  but  with  Congress.    But  this  case  presents  a  ques-
tion  of  statutory  interpretation,  not  a  question  of  policy.  
We  have  no  authority  to  second-guess  Congress  or  to 
decide  whether  Ohio’s  Supplemental  Process  is  the  ideal 
method  for  keeping  its  voting  rolls  up  to  date.    The  only 
question  before  us  is  whether  it  violates  federal  law.    It 
does not. 
  The judgment of the Sixth Circuit is reversed. 

It is so ordered.