Is The Husted V. Randolph Institute Case A Seminal One?

Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States regarding Ohio’s voter registration laws. The court analyzed whether federal law, 52 U.S.C. § 20507, permits Ohio’s list-maintenance process, which uses a registered voter’s voter information. The court’s opinion framed the case as a dry exercise in bureaucratic mechanics and statutory interpretation.

The Ohio voter list maintenance law does not violate the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). Respondents argue that Ohio removes registered voters on a ground not permitted by the NVRA, such as the removal of a name for a deceased individual. The Supreme Court upheld Ohio’s list-maintenance process against a challenge under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.

The A. Philip Randolph Institute and another advocacy group sued Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted in federal district court, asserting that Ohio’s practice of purging voters who are registered to vote in federal elections does not violate the NVRA. The court upheld an Ohio law that could ultimately allow the state to remove close to one million registered voters from its voter rolls.

In summary, Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute is a voting rights case challenging Ohio’s unlawful purge practices. The court upheld an Ohio law that could ultimately allow the state to remove close to one million registered voters from its voter rolls.