Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-980_f2q3.pdf
Page Number: 8.0

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

5 

Opinion of the Court 

for a period covering two general elections for federal office 
(usually  about  four  years).    Only  if  the  registrant  fails  to 
vote  during  that  period  and  does  not  otherwise  confirm 
that  he  or  she  still  lives  in  the  district  (e.g.,  by  updating 
address information online) may the registrant’s name be 
removed.  §20507(d)(2)(A); see §§20507(d)(1)(B), (3). 
  In  addition  to  these  specific  change-of-residence  re-
quirements,  the  NVRA  also  imposes  two  general  limita-
tions that are applicable to state removal programs.  First, 
all  such  programs  must  be  “uniform,  nondiscriminatory, 
and  in  compliance  with  the  Voting  Rights  Act  of  1965.”  
§20507(b)(1).    Second,  the  NVRA  contains  what  we  will 
call the “Failure-to-Vote Clause.”  See §20507(b)(2). 
  At present, this clause contains two parts.  The first is a 
prohibition  that  was  included  in  the  NVRA  when  it  was 
originally  enacted  in  1993.    It  provides  that  a  state  pro-
gram  “shall  not  result  in  the  removal  of  the  name  of  any 
person . . . by reason of the person’s failure to vote.”  Ibid.  
The  second  part,  added  by  the  Help  America  Vote  Act  of 
2002  (HAVA),  116  Stat.  1666,  explains  the  meaning  of 
that  prohibition.    This  explanation  says  that  “nothing  in 
[the prohibition] may be construed to prohibit a State from 
using  the  procedures  described  in  [§§20507](c)  and  (d)  to 
remove  an  individual  from  the  official  list  of  eligible  vot-
ers.”  §20507(b)(2). 
  These  referenced  subsections,  §§20507(c)  and  (d),  are 
the  provisions  allowing  the  removal  of  registrants  who 
either  submitted  change-of-address  information  to  the 
Postal  Service  (subsection  (c))  or  did  not  mail  back  a  re-
turn  card  and  did  not  vote  during  a  period  covering  two 
general federal elections (subsection (d)).  And since one of 
the  requirements  for  removal  under  subsection  (d)  is  the 
failure  to  vote  during  this  period,  the  explanation  added 
by HAVA in 2002 makes it clear that the statutory phrase 
“by reason of the person’s failure to vote” in the Failure-to-
Vote  Clause  does  not  categorically  preclude  the  use  of