Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-980_f2q3.pdf
Page Number: 11

8 

HUSTED v. A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE 

Opinion of the Court 

Supplemental  Process  “mirror[s]  the  procedures  estab-
lished  by  the  NVRA”  for  removing  people  on  change-of-
residence grounds and does not violate the Failure-to-Vote 
Clause  because  it  does  not  remove  anyone  “solely  for 
[their]  failure  to  vote.”    App.  to  Pet.  for  Cert.  43a,  57a, 
69a–70a. 
  A  divided  panel  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  Sixth 
Circuit  reversed.    838  F. 3d  699  (2016).    It  focused  on 
respondents’ second  argument,  holding  that Ohio  violates 
the  Failure-to-Vote  Clause  because  it  sends  change-of-
residence  notices  “based  ‘solely’  on  a  person’s  failure  to 
vote.”    Id.,  at  711.   In  dissent,  Judge Siler  explained why 
he saw the case as a simple one: “The State cannot remove 
the  registrant’s  name  from  the  rolls  for  a  failure  to  vote 
only, and Ohio does not do [that].”  Id., at 716. 
  We  granted  certiorari,  581  U. S.  ___  (2017),  and  now 
reverse. 

II 
A 
  As noted, subsection (d), the provision of the NVRA that 
directly addresses the procedures that a State must follow 
before  removing  a  registrant  from  the  rolls  on  change-of-
residence  grounds,  provides  that  a  State  may  remove  a 
registrant  who  “(i)  has  failed  to  respond  to  a  notice”  and 
“(ii)  has  not  voted  or  appeared  to  vote  . . .  during  the  pe- 
riod beginning on the date of the notice and ending on the 
day  after  the  date  of  the  second  general  election  for  Fed- 
eral  office  that  occurs  after  the  date  of  the  notice”  (about 
four  years).    52  U. S. C.  §20507(d)(1)(B).    Not  only  are 
States  allowed  to  remove  registrants  who  satisfy  these 
requirements, but federal law makes this removal manda-
tory.  §20507(d)(3); see also §21083(a)(4)(A). 
  Ohio’s  Supplemental  Process  follows  subsection  (d)  to 
the  letter.    It  is  undisputed  that  Ohio  does  not  remove  a 
registrant  on  change-of-residence  grounds  unless  the