Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-980_f2q3.pdf
Page Number: 10.0

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

7 

Opinion of the Court 

broader  than  simply  voting.    It  also  includes  such  things 
as  “sign[ing]  a  petition,”  “filing  a  voter  registration  form, 
and  updating  a  voting  address  with  a  variety  of  [state] 
entities.”  Id., at 295, 357. 
  After  sending  these  notices,  Ohio  removes  registrants 
from  the  rolls  only  if  they  “fai[l]  to  respond”  and  “con-
tinu[e]  to  be  inactive  for  an  additional  period of  four  con-
secutive  years,  including  two  federal  general  elections.”  
Id.,  at  1509;  see  Ohio  Rev.  Code  Ann.  §3503.21(B)(2).  
Federal law specifies that a registration may be canceled if 
the  registrant  does  not  vote  “in  an  election  during  the 
period” covering two general federal elections after notice, 
§20507(d)(1)(B)(ii),  but  Ohio  rounds  up  to  “four  consecu-
tive years” of nonvoting after notice, Record 1509.  Thus, a 
person remains on the rolls if he or she votes in any elec-
tion  during  that  period—which  in  Ohio  typically  means 
voting  in  any  of  the  at  least  four  elections  after  notice.  
Combined with the two years of nonvoting before notice is 
sent,  that  makes  a  total  of  six  years  of  nonvoting  before 
removal.  Ibid. 

C 
  A  pair  of  advocacy  groups  and  an  Ohio  resident  (re-
spondents  here)  think  that  Ohio’s  Supplemental  Process 
violates  the  NVRA  and  HAVA.    They  sued  petitioner, 
Ohio’s  Secretary  of  State,  seeking  to  enjoin  this  process.  
Respondents  alleged,  first,  that  Ohio  removes  voters  who 
have not actually moved, thus purging the rolls of eligible 
voters.    They  also  contended  that  Ohio  violates  the 
NVRA’s Failure-to-Vote Clause because the failure to vote 
plays a prominent part in the Ohio removal scheme: Fail-
ure  to  vote  for  two  years  triggers  the  sending  of  a  return 
card, and if the card is not returned, failure to vote for four 
more years results in removal. 
  The District Court rejected both of these arguments and 
entered  judgment  for  the  Secretary.    It  held  that  Ohio’s