Condos: SCOTUS did not do what it 'should' have in Ohio

-A A +A

Condos: SCOTUS did not do what it 'should' have in Ohio

Wed, 06/13/2018 - 1:25pm -- tim

Vermont Business Magazine Following Supreme Court decision in Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute on June 11, 2018, Vermont Secretary of State Jim Condos issued the following statement. In a 5-4 decision, the court sided with the state of Ohio in allowing for removal of names from voter rolls.

Condos: “To me, this is a classic case of what you can do under the law, and not what you should do. While the Court may be technically correct that the practice in Ohio meets the letter of the law in the National Voting Rights Act, and does not remove a person based solely on a failure to vote (as the NVRA prohibits), that is the practical result of their process.

CNN

"Voting is a constitutionally protected right. Imposing a ‘use it or lose it’ trigger for notices being sent to voters before unregistering them disproportionally affects minority, low-income, disabled, and veteran voters, and in states like Ohio, which don’t have election day registration like Vermont, overly aggressive voter roll purging will result in eligible voters being denied the ability to cast their ballots on election day.

"Denying an eligible voter their constitutional right to vote is voter suppression, plain and simple. I’m disappointed with the Supreme Court’s decision in this case, and call upon my colleagues across the country to respond by increasing voter access and voting rights instead of stripping them away.”

Source: Condos. 6.12.2018