Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-980_f2q3.pdf
Page Number: 29

2 

HUSTED v. A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

United States—from literacy tests to the poll tax and from 
strict residency requirements  to  “selective  purges.”   H.  R. 
Rep.  No.  103–9,  p.  2  (1993).    Each  was  designed  “to  keep 
certain  groups  of  citizens  from  voting”  and  “discourage 
participation.”    Ibid.    By  1965,  the  Voting  Rights  Act 
abolished some of the “more obvious impediments to regis-
tration,” but still, in 1993, Congress concluded that it had 
“unfinished business”  to  attend  to  in this  domain.    Id.,  at 
3.  That year, Congress enacted the National Voter Regis-
tration  Act  “to  protect  the  integrity  of  the  electoral  pro-
cess,”  “increase  the  number  of  eligible  citizens  who  regis-
ter to vote in elections for Federal office,” and “ensure that 
accurate  and  current  voter  registration  rolls  are  main-
tained.”  §20501(b).  It did so mindful that “the purpose of 
our  election  process  is not  to  test  the  fortitude  and deter-
mination of the voter, but to discern the will of the majority.”  
S. Rep. No. 103–6, p. 3 (1993). 
  In  accordance  with  these  aims,  §8  of  the  Registration 
Act  sets  forth  a  series  of  requirements  that  States  must 
satisfy  in  their  “administration  of  voter  registration  for 
elections for Federal office.”  §20507.  Ohio’s Supplemental 
Process fails to comport with these requirements; it erects 
needless hurdles to voting of the kind Congress sought to 
eliminate  by  enacting  the  Registration  Act.    Four  of  §8’s 
provisions are critical to this case: subsections (a), (b), (c), 
and  (d).    The  text  of  each  subsection  is  detailed  and  con-
tains multiple parts.  Given the complexity of the statute, 
readers  should  consult  these  provisions  themselves  (see 
Appendix A, infra, at 21–24) and try to keep the thrust of 
those  provisions  in  mind  while  reading  this  opinion.    At 
the outset, I shall address each of them. 

A 
1 
  We  begin  with  subsection  (a)’s  “Reasonable  Program” 
requirement.  That provision says that “each State shall”: