KXIP vs KKR Live Score

In 2016, more than 7,500 voters showed up at the polls and found their names missing, forcing them to vote a provisional ballot, OH elections officials said.

A ruling for OH could prompt other states to adopt the practice, which often pits Democrats against Republicans.

Ohio's policy would have barred more than 7,500 voters from casting a ballot in the November 2016 election had the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals not ruled against the state.

Senator Rob Portman's office said Portman didn't have anything to say about the case and likely would not until after the court issues a ruling.

"Voters have been struck from the rolls in Democratic-leaning neighborhoods at roughly twice the rate as in Republican neighborhoods", the study found. "Neighborhoods that have a high proportion of poor, African-American residents are hit the hardest".

"Other states should be encouraged to take similar and even further action to protect the sanctity of our nation's elections", he said. They said deleting voters without more of a reason violates the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, better known as the motor-voter law. As part of the lawsuit, a judge a year ago ordered the state to count 7,515 ballots cast by people whose names had been removed from the voter rolls.

If they had moved, why didn't they update their registrations?

"I thought the Justices asked a great series of questions", Husted said in an interview after the court's hour-long arguments.

According to Perez, there's a possibility that the Supreme Court will hand down a narrow opinion saying Ohio's process in particular, by starting the process after just one federal election cycle without a vote cast, is too unreliable.

"Many of these voters-as well as voters who had been purged under Ohio's Supplemental Process in previous years-went to the polls in November 2015 and March 2016 only to learn that their names no longer appeared on the rolls, and were denied their fundamental right to vote".

More news: United Nations envoy says no change in USA position on North Korea talks

"There are strong arguments on both sides", Alito said, suggesting his decision will come down to interpreting the language of the statute. If the individual doesn't respond and proceeds to not vote or engage in another form of electoral activity in the subsequent four years, the state maintains that it is reasonable to remove this person from the voter rolls.

Ohio, backed by 17 other mostly Republican states, said it is complying with federal law.

Adding to the mix, the Trump administration reversed the position taken by the Obama administration and is now backing Ohio's method for purging voters.

The case is just one battlefront of a larger war being waged against the National Voter Registration Act - the so-called "Motor Voter" law that streamlined the process by which people can registered to vote and put standards on how states could clean their voter rolls. A federal law clearly prohibits disqualifying voters exclusively for not voting. The problem, the state said, is that some people move without notifying the post office.

Helle feels that people should have the right not to vote without the risk of losing their right to vote.

"What you do results in disenfranchising disproportionately certain cities where large groups of minorities live, where large groups of homeless people live", Sotomayor said. If a voter does not respond to that single mailing and does not vote for the next four years, the voter is automatically removed from the state's voter rolls.

But those challenging the process say voting is not a use-it-or-lose-it right, and that voters choose not to cast ballots because of illness, apathy, or other reasons - not because they've moved.

HUSTED: We email you your ballot. "You either need to exercise your right to vote or at least let us know that you're still living in a place after a period of time or then we remove you from the voter rolls".

The Trump administration filed a brief in support of the OH "use it or lose it" voting policy a year ago in Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, which will be heard in the nation's top court on Wednesday.


COMMENTS