Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-980_f2q3.pdf
Page Number: 19

16 

HUSTED v. A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE 

Opinion of the Court 

sion that the NVRA and HAVA do not allow us to indulge.  
Congress  clearly  did  not  think  that  the  failure  to  send 
back  a  return  card  was  of  no  evidentiary  value  because 
Congress  made  that  conduct  one  of  the  two  requirements 
for removal under subsection (d). 
  Requiring  additional  evidence  not  only  second-guesses 
the  congressional  judgment  embodied  in  subsection  (d)’s 
removal  process,  but  it  also  second-guesses  the  judgment 
of  the  Ohio  Legislature  as  expressed  in  the  State’s  Sup-
plemental  Process.    The  Constitution  gives  States  the 
authority  to  set  the  qualifications  for  voting  in  congres-
sional  elections,  Art. I,  §2,  cl. 1;  Amdt.  17,  as  well  as  the 
authority  to  set  the  “Times,  Places  and  Manner”  to  con-
duct such elections in the absence of contrary congressional 
direction, Art. I, §4, cl. 1.  We have no authority to dismiss 
the  considered  judgment  of  Congress  and the  Ohio  Legis-
lature  regarding  the  probative  value  of  a  registrant’s 
failure  to  send  back  a  return  card.    See  Inter  Tribal,  570 
U. S., at 16–19; see also id., at 36–37 (THOMAS, J., dissent-
ing); id., at 42–43, 46 (ALITO, J., dissenting). 
  For  all  these  reasons,  we  hold  that  Ohio  law  does  not 
violate the Failure-to-Vote Clause. 

III 
  We  similarly  reject  respondents’  argument  that  Ohio 
violates other provisions of the NVRA and HAVA. 

A 
  Respondents  contend  that  Ohio  removes  registered 
voters  on  a  ground  not  permitted  by  the  NVRA.    They 
claim  that  the  NVRA  permits  the  removal  of  a  name  for 
only a few specified reasons—a person’s request, criminal 
conviction,  mental  incapacity,  death,  change  of  residence, 
and  initial  ineligibility.    Brief for  Respondents  25–26; see 
52  U. S. C. §§20507(a)(3), (4).5    And they  argue  that Ohio 
—————— 

5 We assume for the sake of argument that Congress has the constitu-