Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-980_f2q3.pdf
Page Number: 30.0

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

3 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

“conduct  a  general  program  that  makes  a  reasonable 
effort  to  remove  the  names  of  ineligible  voters  from 
the  official  lists  of  eligible  voters  by  reason  of  . . .  a 
change  in  the  residence  of  the  registrant,  in  accord-
ance with subsections (b), (c), and (d).”  §20507(a)(4). 

This provision tells each State that it must try to remove 
ineligible voters from the rolls, that it must act reasonably 
in  doing  so,  and  that,  when  it  does  so,  it  must  follow  the 
rules  contained  in  the  next  three  subsections  of  §8—
namely, subsections (b), (c), and (d). 

2 

(b)’s  “Failure-to-Vote”  Clause  generally 
  Subsection 
forbids  state  change-of-residence  removal  programs  that 
rely  upon  a  registrant’s  failure  to  vote  as  a  basis  for  re-
moving  the  registrant’s  name  from  the  federal  voter  roll.  
Before  1993,  when  Congress  enacted  this  prohibition, 
many States would assume a registered voter had changed 
his address, and consequently remove that voter from the 
rolls,  simply  because  the  registrant  had  failed  to  vote.  
Recognizing  that  many  registered  voters  who  do  not  vote 
“may not have moved,” S. Rep. No. 103–6, at 17, Congress 
consequently  prohibited  States  from  using  the  failure  to 
vote as a proxy for moving and thus a basis for purging the 
voter’s name from the rolls.  The Failure-to-Vote Clause, as 
originally enacted, said: 

“Any State program or activity to protect the integrity 
of  the  electoral  process  by  ensuring  the  maintenance 
of  an  accurate  and  current  voter  registration  roll  for 
elections  for  Federal  office  . . .  shall  not  result  in  the 
removal  of  the  name  of  any  person  from  the  official 
list of voters registered to vote in an election for Fed-
eral  office  by  reason  of  the  person’s  failure  to  vote.”  
107 Stat. 83; see §20507(b)(2). 

  As  I  shall  discuss,  Congress  later  clarified  that  “using