Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-980_f2q3.pdf
Page Number: 54.0

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

1 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 16–980 
_________________ 

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

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

[June 11, 2018] 

  JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, dissenting. 
  I  join  the  principal  dissent  in  full  because  I  agree  that 
the  statutory  text  plainly  supports  respondents’  interpre-
tation.  I write separately to emphasize how that reading 
is  bolstered  by  the  essential  purposes  stated  explicitly  in 
the  National  Voter  Registration  Act  of  1993  (NVRA)  to 
increase  the  registration  and  enhance  the  participation  
of  eligible  voters  in  federal  elections. 
  52  U. S. C. 
§§20501(b)(1)–(2).    Congress  enacted  the  NVRA  against 
the backdrop of substantial efforts by States to disenfran-
chise low-income and minority voters, including programs 
that  purged  eligible  voters from  registration lists  because 
they  failed  to  vote  in  prior  elections.    The  Court  errs  in 
ignoring  this  history  and  distorting  the  statutory  text  to 
arrive at a conclusion that not only is contrary to the plain 
language  of  the  NVRA  but  also  contradicts  the  essential 
purposes  of  the  statute,  ultimately  sanctioning  the  very 
purging that Congress expressly sought to protect against. 
  Concerted state efforts to prevent minorities from voting 
and to undermine the efficacy of their votes are an unfor-
tunate  feature  of  our  country’s  history.    See  Schuette  v. 
BAMN,  572  U. S.  291,  337–338  (2014)  (SOTOMAYOR,  J., 
dissenting).    As  the  principal  dissent  explains,  “[i]n  the 
late  19th  and  early  20th  centuries,  a  number  of