Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-980_f2q3.pdf
Page Number: 58.0

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

5 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

the Supplemental Process removes voters “by reason of the 
person’s failure to vote” in violation of §20507(b)(2).  Con-
trary  to  the  majority’s  view,  ante,  at  20–21,  the  NVRA’s 
express  findings  and  purpose  are  highly  relevant  to  that 
interpretive analysis because they represent “the assumed 
facts  and  the  purposes  that  the  majority  of  the  enacting 
legislature  . . .  had  in  mind,  and  these  can  shed  light  on 
the  meaning  of  the  operative  provisions  that  follow.”    A. 
Scalia  &  B.  Garner,  Reading  Law  218  (2012).    Respond-
ents need not demonstrate discriminatory intent to estab-
lish that Ohio’s interpretation of the NVRA is contrary to 
the statutory text and purpose. 
  In  concluding  that  the  Supplemental  Process  does  not 
violate  the  NVRA,  the  majority  does  more  than  just  mis-
construe the statutory text.  It entirely ignores the history 
of voter suppression against which the NVRA was enacted 
and  upholds  a  program  that  appears  to  further  the  very 
disenfranchisement  of  minority  and  low-income  voters 
that  Congress  set  out  to  eradicate.    States,  though,  need 
not  choose  to  be  so  unwise.    Our  democracy  rests  on  the 
ability  of  all  individuals,  regardless  of  race,  income,  or 
status,  to  exercise  their  right  to  vote.    The  majority  of 
States  have  found  ways  to  maintain  accurate  voter  rolls 
without  initiating  removal  processes  based  solely  on  an 
individual’s failure to vote.  See App. to Brief for League of 
Women Voters of the United States et al. as Amici Curiae 
1a–9a;  Brief for State  of  New York  et al.  as Amici  Curiae 
22–28.    Communities  that  are  disproportionately  affected 
by unnecessarily harsh registration laws should not toler-
ate  efforts  to  marginalize  their  influence  in  the  political 
process, nor should allies who recognize blatant unfairness 
stand  idly  by.    Today’s  decision  forces  these  communities 
and  their  allies  to  be  even  more  proactive  and  vigilant  in 
holding their States accountable and working to dismantle 
the obstacles they face in exercising the fundamental right 
to vote.