Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-980_f2q3.pdf
Page Number: 28.0

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

1 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 16–980 
_________________ 

JON HUSTED, OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE, 
PETITIONER v. A. PHILIP RANDOLPH 
INSTITUTE, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 

[June 11, 2018] 

  JUSTICE  BREYER,  with  whom  JUSTICE  GINSBURG, 
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, and JUSTICE KAGAN join, dissenting. 
  Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 
requires States to “conduct a general program that makes 
a  reasonable  effort  to  remove  the  names  of  ineligible  vot-
ers from the official lists of eligible voters by reason of . . . 
a change in the residence of the registrant.”  §8(a)(4), 107 
Stat.  82–83,  52  U. S. C.  §20507(a)(4).    This  case  concerns 
the  State  of  Ohio’s  change-of-residence  removal  program 
(called  the  “Supplemental  Process”),  under  which  a  regis-
tered  voter’s  failure  to  vote  in  a  single  federal  election 
begins  a  process  that  may  well  result  in  the  removal  of 
that  voter’s  name  from  the  federal  voter  rolls.    See  infra, 
at  7.    The  question  is  whether  the  Supplemental  Process 
violates  §8,  which  prohibits  a  State  from  removing  regis-
trants from the federal voter roll “by reason of the person’s 
failure to vote.”  §20507(b)(2).  In my view, Ohio’s program 
does just that.  And I shall explain why and how that is so. 

I 
  This case concerns the manner in which States maintain 
federal voter registration lists.  In the late 19th and early 
20th centuries, a number of “[r]estrictive registration laws 
and  administrative  procedures”  came  into  use  across  the