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

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

13 

Opinion of the Court 

does not narrow the language that precedes it; it clarifies 
what  that  language  means.    That  is  precisely  what  Con-
gress  said  when  it  enacted  HAVA:  It  added  the  “may  not 
be  construed”  provision  to  “[c]larif[y],”  not  to  alter,  the 
prohibition’s scope.  §903, 116 Stat. 1728. 
  Second,  under  respondents’  reading,  HAVA’s  new  lan-
guage is worse than superfluous.  Even without the added 
language,  no  sensible  person  would  read  the  Failure-to-
Vote  Clause  as  prohibiting  what  subsections  (c)  and  (d) 
expressly  allow.    Yet  according  to  respondents,  that  is  all 
that the new language accomplishes.  So at a minimum, it 
would be redundant. 
  But  the  implications  of  this  reading  are  actually  worse 
than that.  There is no reason to create an exception to a 
prohibition  unless  the  prohibition  would  otherwise  forbid 
what  the  exception  allows.    So  if  the  new  language  were 
an exception, it would seem to follow that prior to HAVA, 
the Failure-to-Vote Clause did outlaw what subsections (c) 
and  (d) specifically  authorize.    And  that,  of  course,  would 
be nonsensical. 
  Third, respondents’ reading of the language that HAVA 
added  to  the  Failure-to-Vote  Clause  makes  it  hard  to 
understand why Congress prescribed in another section of 
the same Act, i.e., §21083(a)(4)(A), that “no registrant may 
be removed solely by reason of a failure to vote.”  As inter-
preted  by  respondents,  the  amended  Failure-to-Vote 
Clause  prohibits  any  use  of  nonvoting  with  just  two  nar-
row  exceptions—the  uses  allowed  by  subsections  (c)  and 
(d).  So, according to respondents, the amended Failure-to-
Vote  Clause  prohibits  much  more  than  §21083(a)(4)(A).  
That  provision,  in  addition  to  allowing  the  use  of  nonvot-
ing in accordance with subsections (c) and (d), also permits 
the use of nonvoting in any other way that does not treat 
nonvoting as the sole basis for removal. 
  There is no plausible reason why Congress would enact 
the provision that respondents envision.  As interpreted by