Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Supreme Court seems skeptical of blocking Ohio law that removes voters from rolls
New title. Based on an existing thread. No need to start new thread.
Old title: SCOTUSblog's coverage of today's critical voting rights arguments.
Supreme Court seems skeptical of blocking Ohio law that removes voters from rolls
Link to tweet
Politics
Supreme Court seems skeptical of blocking Ohio law that removes voters from rolls
By Robert Barnes January 10 at 4:22 PM
Challengers of an Ohio law that purges voters who do not participate in consecutive elections or respond to a notice from state officials seemed to face an uphill battle Wednesday at the Supreme Court.
During oral arguments, only the courts three most liberal justices seemed convinced that Ohios procedure violates a federal law that forbids rescinding registration because of a persons decision not to vote. Challengers say the law has had an outsize impact among minority voters and in the states urban areas.
The essence of this case, said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, is whether Ohios process is disenfranchising disproportionately certain cities where large groups of minorities live, where large groups of homeless people live, and across the country theyre the group that votes the least.
....
The case is Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute.
Robert Barnes has been a Washington Post reporter and editor since 1987. He has covered the Supreme Court since November 2006. Follow @scotusreporter
Supreme Court seems skeptical of blocking Ohio law that removes voters from rolls
By Robert Barnes January 10 at 4:22 PM
Challengers of an Ohio law that purges voters who do not participate in consecutive elections or respond to a notice from state officials seemed to face an uphill battle Wednesday at the Supreme Court.
During oral arguments, only the courts three most liberal justices seemed convinced that Ohios procedure violates a federal law that forbids rescinding registration because of a persons decision not to vote. Challengers say the law has had an outsize impact among minority voters and in the states urban areas.
The essence of this case, said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, is whether Ohios process is disenfranchising disproportionately certain cities where large groups of minorities live, where large groups of homeless people live, and across the country theyre the group that votes the least.
....
The case is Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute.
Robert Barnes has been a Washington Post reporter and editor since 1987. He has covered the Supreme Court since November 2006. Follow @scotusreporter
Our own Paul Smith of @CampaignLegal is arguing the case this morning.
Link to tweet
.@SCOTUSblog preview of today's critical voting rights arguments. At stake: can states strip you from the voter rolls for *not* voting? CLC's Paul Smith will be arguing on behalf of our allies @acluohio @aclu @Demos_Org. #ProtectMyVote
Link to tweet
From January 4, 2018:
Argument preview: Justices to consider Ohio voter-purge practices
This case was first published at Howe on the Court.
Posted in Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, Featured, Merits Cases
Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Argument preview: Justices to consider Ohio voter-purge practices, SCOTUSblog (Jan. 4, 2018, 6:19 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/01/argument-preview-justices-consider-ohio-voter-purge-practices/
This case was first published at Howe on the Court.
Posted in Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, Featured, Merits Cases
Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Argument preview: Justices to consider Ohio voter-purge practices, SCOTUSblog (Jan. 4, 2018, 6:19 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/01/argument-preview-justices-consider-ohio-voter-purge-practices/
Today:
Edith Roberts Editor
Posted Wed, January 10th, 2018 7:28 am
Wednesday round-up
This morning the Supreme Court will hear argument in Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, in which the justices will consider whether Ohios voter-roll-maintenance process violates federal voter-registration laws. Amy Howe had this blogs preview, which first appeared at Howe on the Court. Larry Blocho and Ryan Powers preview the case for Cornell Law Schools Legal Information Institute. Subscript offers a graphic explainer. For USA Today, Richard Wolf reports that {g}roups representing racial and ethnic minorities, veterans, and people with disabilities have joined the opposition in whats become the latest in a series of battles against states efforts to restrict voting rights and combat alleged voter fraud. Additional coverage comes from Nina Totenberg at NPR and Steven Mazie at The Economists Espresso blog.
....
Recommended Citation: Edith Roberts, Wednesday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Jan. 10, 2018, 7:28 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/01/wednesday-round-up-406/
Posted Wed, January 10th, 2018 7:28 am
Wednesday round-up
This morning the Supreme Court will hear argument in Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, in which the justices will consider whether Ohios voter-roll-maintenance process violates federal voter-registration laws. Amy Howe had this blogs preview, which first appeared at Howe on the Court. Larry Blocho and Ryan Powers preview the case for Cornell Law Schools Legal Information Institute. Subscript offers a graphic explainer. For USA Today, Richard Wolf reports that {g}roups representing racial and ethnic minorities, veterans, and people with disabilities have joined the opposition in whats become the latest in a series of battles against states efforts to restrict voting rights and combat alleged voter fraud. Additional coverage comes from Nina Totenberg at NPR and Steven Mazie at The Economists Espresso blog.
....
Recommended Citation: Edith Roberts, Wednesday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Jan. 10, 2018, 7:28 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/01/wednesday-round-up-406/
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 1059 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (4)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Supreme Court seems skeptical of blocking Ohio law that removes voters from rolls (Original Post)
mahatmakanejeeves
Jan 2018
OP
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)1. "Ohio purges about twice as many Democrats as Republicans"
It's the address change trap, of course.
Younger voters move more compared to older.
So do less affluent versus affluent.
And so do people who live more progressive lives, embracing bigger and more varied worlds versus those who tend to avoid change.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)2. Kick!