Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-980_f2q3.pdf
Page Number: 35

8 

HUSTED v. A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

violates  subsection  (b)’s  Failure-to-Vote  prohibition  be-
cause  Ohio  uses  nonvoting  in  a  manner  that  is  expressly 
prohibited  and  not  otherwise  authorized  under  §8.    In 
addition,  even  if  that  were  not  so,  the  Supplemental  Pro-
cess  also  fails  to  satisfy  subsection  (a)’s  Reasonable  Pro-
gram  requirement,  since  using  a  registrant’s  failure  to 
vote  is  not  a  reasonable  method  for  identifying  voters 
whose  registrations  are  likely  invalid  (because  they  have 
changed their addresses). 
  First,  as  to  subsection  (b)’s  Failure-to-Vote  Clause, 
recall that Ohio targets for removal registrants who fail to 
vote.    In  identifying  registered  voters  who  have  likely 
changed  residences  by  looking  to  see  if  those  registrants 
failed  to  vote,  Ohio’s  program  violates  subsection  (b)’s 
express  prohibition  on  “[a]ny  State  program  or  activity 
[that]  result[s]  in  the  removal”  of  a  registered  voter  “by 
reason  of  the  person’s  failure  to  vote.”    §20507(b)(2)  (em-
phasis added).  In my view, these words are most naturally 
read  to  prohibit  a  State  from  considering  a  registrant’s 
failure to vote as part of any process “that is used to start, 
or  has  the  effect  of  starting,  a  purge  of  the  voter  rolls.”  
H. R. Rep. No. 103–9, at 15.  In addition, Congress enacted 
the  Failure-to-Vote  Clause  to  prohibit  “the  elimination  of 
names of voters from the rolls solely due to [a registrant’s] 
failure to respond to a mailing.”  Ibid.  But that is precisely 
what  Ohio’s  Supplemental  Process  does.    The  program 
violates  subsection  (b)’s  prohibition  because  under  it,  a 
registrant  who  fails  to  vote  in  a  single  federal  election, 
fails  to  respond  to  a  forwardable  notice,  and  fails  to  vote 
for  another four  years may  well  be  purged.    Record  1508.  
If  the  registrant  had  voted  at  any  point,  the  registrant 
would  not  have  been  removed.    See  supra,  at  7;  infra,  at 
11–14. 
  Ohio  does  use  subsection  (d)’s  Confirmation  Procedure, 
but  that  procedure  alone  does  not  satisfy  §8’s  require-
ments.  How do we know that Ohio’s use of the Confirma-