Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-980_f2q3.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2017 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

HUSTED, OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE v. A. PHILIP 
RANDOLPH INSTITUTE ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 

No. 16–980.  Argued January 10, 2018—Decided June 11, 2018 

The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) addresses the removal of 
ineligible voters from state voting rolls, 52 U. S. C. §20501(b), includ-
ing  those  who  are  ineligible  “by  reason  of”  a  change  in  residence, 
§20507(a)(4).    The  Act  prescribes  requirements  that  a  State  must 
meet  in  order  to  remove  a  name  on  change-of-residence  grounds, 
§§20507(b), (c), (d).  The most relevant of these are found in subsec-
tion  (d),  which  provides  that  a  State  may  not  remove  a  name  on 
change-of-residence grounds unless the registrant either (A) confirms 
in  writing  that  he  or  she  has  moved  or  (B)  fails  to  return  a  pread-
dressed,  postage  prepaid  “return  card”  containing  statutorily  pre-
scribed content and then fails to vote in any election during the peri-
od covering the next two general federal elections. 
  In addition to these specific change-of-residence requirements, the 
NVRA also contains a general “Failure-to-Vote Clause,” §20507(b)(2), 
consisting  of  two  parts.    It  first  provides  that  a  state  removal  pro-
gram  “shall  not  result  in  the  removal  of  the  name  of  any  per-
son . . . by reason of the person’s failure to vote.”  Second, as added by 
the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), it specifies that “nothing 
in [this prohibition] may be construed to prohibit a State from using 
the  procedures”  described  above—sending  a  return  card  and  remov-
ing registrants who fail to return the card and fail to vote for the req-
uisite time.  Since one of the requirements for removal under subsec-
tion (d) is the failure to vote, the explanation added by HAVA makes 
clear  that  the  Failure-to-Vote  Clause’s  prohibition  on  removal  “by 
reason of the person’s failure to vote” does not categorically preclude 
using  nonvoting  as  part  of  a  test  for  removal.    Another  provision 
makes  this  point  even  more  clearly  by  providing  that  “no  registrant