Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-980_f2q3.pdf
Page Number: 14

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

11 

Opinion of the Court 

  Interpreting the Failure-to-Vote Clause as incorporating 
a  proximate  cause  requirement  would  lead  to  a  similar 
problem.    Proximate  cause  is  an  elusive  concept,  see 
McBride,  supra,  at  692–693,  but  no  matter  how  the  term 
is understood, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the 
failure  to  vote  is  a  proximate  cause  of  removal  under 
subsection (d).  If a registrant, having failed to send back a 
return  card,  also  fails  to  vote  during  the  period  covering 
the  next  two  general  federal  elections,  removal  is  the 
direct,  foreseeable,  and  closely  connected  consequence.  
See  Paroline  v.  United  States,  572  U. S.  434,  444–445 
(2014); Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co., 553 U. S. 
639, 654 (2008). 
  By  process  of  elimination,  we  are  left  with  sole  causa-
tion.  This reading harmonizes the Failure-to-Vote Clause 
and  subsection  (d)  because  the  latter  provision  does  not 
authorize removal solely by reason of a person’s failure to 
vote.  Instead, subsection (d) authorizes removal only if a 
registrant also fails to mail back a return card. 
  For these reasons, we conclude that the Failure-to-Vote 
Clause,  as  originally  enacted,  referred  to  sole  causation.  
And  when  Congress  enacted  HAVA,  it  made  this  point 
explicit.    It  added  to  the  Failure-to-Vote  Clause  itself  an 
explanation of how it is to be read, i.e., in a way that does 
not contradict subsection (d).  And in language that cannot 
be  misunderstood,  it  reiterated  what  the  clause  means: 
“[R]egistrants who have not responded to a notice and who 
have not voted in 2 consecutive general elections for Fed-
eral office shall be removed from the official list of eligible 
voters, except that no registrant may be removed solely by 
reason  of  a  failure  to  vote.”    §21083(a)(4)(A)  (emphasis 
added).    In  this  way,  HAVA  dispelled  any  doubt  that  a 
state  removal  program  may  use  the  failure  to  vote  as  a 
factor (but not the sole factor) in removing names from the 
list of registered voters. 
  That is exactly what Ohio’s Supplemental Process does.