Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-980_f2q3.pdf
Page Number: 22

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

19 

Opinion of the Court 

sending  such  notices.    §§20507(a)(4),  (c).    By  its  terms, 
subsection  (c)  simply  provides  one  way—the  minimal 
way—in  which  a  State  “may  meet  the  [NVRA’s]  require-
ment[s]”  for  change-of-residence  removals.    §20507(c) 
(emphasis added).  As respondents agreed at argument, it 
is not the only way.  Tr. of Oral Arg. 53. 

C 
  Nothing in the two dissents changes our analysis of the 
statutory language. 

1 
  Despite its length and complexity, the principal dissent 
sets out only two arguments.  See post, at 7–8 (opinion of 
BREYER,  J.).    The  first  is  one  that  we  have  already  dis-
cussed at length, namely, that the Failure-to-Vote Clause 
prohibits any use of the failure to vote except as permitted 
by  subsections  (c)  and  (d).    We  have  explained  why  this 
argument  is  insupportable,  supra,  at  12–16,  and  the  dis-
sent has no answer to any of the problems we identify. 
  The dissent’s only other argument is that Ohio’s process 
violates  §20507(a)(4),  which  requires  States  to  make  a 
“reasonable effort” to remove the names of ineligible voters 
from  the  rolls.    The  dissent  thinks  that  this  provision 
authorizes the federal courts to go beyond the restrictions 
set  out  in  subsections  (b),  (c),  and  (d)  and  to  strike  down 
any  state  law  that  does  not  meet  their  own  standard  of 
“reasonableness.”    But  see  Brief  for  United  States  as 
Amicus  Curiae  28–29.    The  dissent  contends  that  Ohio’s 
system  violates  this  supposed  “reasonableness”  require-
ment primarily because it relies on the failure to mail back 
the  postcard  sent to those who  have  not  engaged  in  voter 
activity for  two  years.   Based on  its own  cobbled-together 
statistics, post, at 12–13, and a feature of human nature of 
which  the  dissent  has  apparently  taken  judicial  notice 
(i.e., “the human tendency not to send back cards received