Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute: How Can States Maintain Their Voter Rolls?

Authors

Chris Smith

Document Type

Supreme Court Commentaries

Publication Date

3-22-2018

Keywords

Voting Rights Act, voter registration, federalism

Subject Category

Constitutional Law | Supreme Court of the United States

Abstract

In Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, the Supreme Court will decide whether the Ohio’s Supplemental Process for maintaining its voter rolls violates the requirements of the National Voter Registration Act (“NVRA”) and the Help America Vote Act (“HAVA”). The Court’s opinion will shape the landscape of voting rights, as many states are struggling to meet the dual mandates of election sanctity and increased voter access. This commentary argues that the Supreme Court can give states a guideline for what is an acceptable process that complies with the conflicting federal policies in the NVRA and HAVA. The Court should hold that Ohio’s Supplemental Process is in accordance with the NVRA and HAVA.

Recommended Citation

Chris Smith, Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute: How Can States Maintain Their Voter Rolls?, 13 Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar 119-131 (2018)