Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-980_f2q3.pdf
Page Number: 57.0

4 

HUSTED v. A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

elections are taking place. 
  It  is  unsurprising  in  light  of  the  history  of  such  purge 
programs  that  numerous  amici  report  that  the  Supple-
mental  Process  has  disproportionately  affected  minority, 
low-income, disabled, and veteran voters.  As one example, 
amici point to an investigation that revealed that in Ham-
ilton  County,  “African-American-majority  neighborhoods 
in  downtown  Cincinnati  had  10%  of  their  voters  removed 
due  to  inactivity”  since  2012,  as  “compared  to  only  4%  of 
voters in a suburban, majority-white neighborhood.”  Brief 
for  National  Association  for  the  Advancement  of  Colored 
People et al. as Amici Curiae 18–19.  Amici also explain at 
length how low voter turnout rates, language-access prob-
lems,  mail  delivery  issues,  inflexible  work  schedules,  and 
transportation  issues,  among  other  obstacles,  make  it 
more  difficult  for  many  minority,  low-income,  disabled, 
homeless,  and  veteran  voters  to  cast  a  ballot  or  return  a 
notice,  rendering  them  particularly  vulnerable  to  unwar-
ranted  removal  under  the  Supplemental  Process.    See 
Brief  for  Asian  Americans  Advancing  Justice  |  AAJC  et 
al.  as  Amici  Curiae  15–26;  Brief  for  National  Disability 
Rights  Network  et al.  as  Amici  Curiae  17,  21–24,  29–31; 
Brief  for  VoteVets  Action  Fund  as  Amicus  Curiae  23–30.  
See  also  Brief  for  Libertarian  National  Committee  as 
Amicus Curiae 19–22 (burdens on principled nonvoters). 
  Neither the majority nor Ohio meaningfully dispute that 
the  Supplemental  Process  disproportionately  burdens 
these  communities.    At  oral  argument,  Ohio  suggested 
that  such  a  disparate  impact is  not  pertinent to  this  case 
because  respondents  did  not  challenge  the  Supplemental 
Process  under  §20507(b)(1),  which  requires  that  any  re-
moval  program  “be  uniform,  nondiscriminatory,  and  in 
compliance  with  the  Voting  Rights  Act.”    Tr.  of  Oral  Arg. 
23.  The fact that respondents did not raise a claim under 
§20507(b)(1),  however,  is  wholly  irrelevant  to  our  assess-
ment  of  whether,  as  a  matter  of  statutory  interpretation,