Skip to main content

Sign up for our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values. Direct to your inbox.

There are less than 72 hours left in this Mid-Year Campaign and our independent journalism needs your help today.
If you value our work, please support Common Dreams. This is our hour of need.

Join the small group of generous readers who donate, keeping Common Dreams free for millions of people each year. Without your help, we won’t survive.

What's more, Ohio's aggressive purge policy "appears to be helping Republicans in the state's largest metropolitan areas," a Reuters investigation found. (Photo: Justin Grimes/cc/flickr)

What's more, Ohio's aggressive purge policy "appears to be helping Republicans in the state's largest metropolitan areas," a Reuters investigation found. (Photo: Justin Grimes/cc/flickr)

Court Says Ohio's Voter Purge is Illegal, But Will Rolls Be Restored in Time for Election?

Ohio's policy is said to be the most aggressive in the nation with more than 2 million registered voters removed since 2011

Lauren McCauley

In a decision said to be a "big deal" for voters in a crucial swing state, a federal court on Friday declared that Ohio's practice of purging millions of registered citizens from its rolls is in violation of national voting laws.

The order reverses a lower court ruling, which favored Secretary of State Jon Husted. In Friday's opinion (pdf), District Judge George C. Smith declared that "Ohio's Supplemental Process [for removing voters from the rolls] violates Section 8, subsection (b)(2) of the [National Voter Registration Act (NVRA)]."

Ohio's "purge" is said to be the most aggressive in the nation, removing more voters over a five-year period than any other state. Since 2011, more than 2 million voters have been purged. According to Husted's office, from 2011 to 2014, 846,000 were scrapped for infrequent voting and 480,000 for moving.

The Nation columnist Ari Berman recently explained that it "works like this: If a voter misses an election, Ohio sends them a letter making sure their address is still current. If the voter doesn't respond, Ohio puts them on an inactive list, and if the voter doesn't vote in the next two elections they are removed from the rolls."

Smith acknowledges that Husted did take some steps to remedy the registration policy by issuing a new form, but said that the secretary had failed to carry "his burden of showing that is is 'absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.'"

Further, he agreed with the plaintiffs' argument that the "newly-issued form does nothing to correct the fact that Ohio has, for years, been removing voters from the rolls because they failed to respond to forms that are blatantly non-compliant with the NVRA."

The plaintiffs, which include the A. Philip Randolph Institute, the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless, and citizen Larry Harmon, argued that purging voters for infrequent voting "has a disparate impact on minority communities" and particularly burdens "poor and illiterate voters [who may be] caught in a purge system which will require them to needlessly re-register."

Though Husted has alleged that the process is done in a uniform manner, a Reuters investigation found that "the policy appears to be helping Republicans in the state's largest metropolitan areas."

According to the news outlet's survey of voter lists, "In the state's three largest counties that include Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Columbus, voters have been struck from the rolls in Democratic-leaning neighborhoods at roughly twice the rate as in Republican neighborhoods."

Similarly, an Enquirer/USA Today probe revealed that in some communities those purged records are kept track of, while in others they are just deleted.

"Depending on where you live, county election officials might diligently remove thousands of voter registrations each year, documented by detailed records. Or they might insist they haven't followed through with the state-ordered process in some years, or apologize for tossing those files years ago," according to the survey of all 88 county board of elections.

USA Today reported:

At best, these records reveal a lack of care by some election officials tracking voters taken off the rolls. 

At worst, they point to a system of removing voters that's far from uniform—meaning where you live could determine when, or if, your voter registration is deleted. And that could affect whose votes count, and whose don't, in a critical battleground state that may determine the next president.

Friday's decision now sends the case back to the lower court, which, according to McClatchy, "must establish a process for either restoring purged voters to the rolls or allowing them to vote provisionally and having all those votes count."

With the presidential election just seven weeks away, the clock is ticking.

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Just a few days left in our crucial Mid-Year Campaign and we might not make it without your help.
Who funds our independent journalism? Readers like you who believe in our mission: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. No corporate advertisers. No billionaire founder. Our non-partisan, nonprofit media model has only one source of revenue: The people who read and value this work and our mission. That's it.
And the model is simple: If everyone just gives whatever amount they can afford and think is reasonable—$3, $9, $29, or more—we can continue. If not enough do, we go dark.

All the small gifts add up to something otherwise impossible. Please join us today. Donate to Common Dreams. This is crunch time. We need you now.

Grave Warnings as Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case That Threatens 'Future of Voting Rights'

"Buckle up," implores one prominent legal scholar. "An extreme decision here could fundamentally alter the balance of power in setting election rules in the states and provide a path for great threats to elections."

Brett Wilkins ·

Biden Urged to Take Emergency Action After 'Disastrous' Climate Ruling by Supreme Court

"The catastrophic impact of this decision cannot be understated," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal, but "we cannot accept defeat."

Kenny Stancil ·

'Now We're Talking!' Says AOC as Biden Backs Filibuster Carveout for Abortion Rights

"Time for people to see a real, forceful push for it," said the New York Democrat. "Use the bully pulpit. We need more."

Jake Johnson ·

Supreme Court Says Biden Can End 'Shameful' Remain in Mexico Asylum Policy

"Now is the turn for Congress to get rid of Title 42, and provide a solution to the weakened asylum system in place, to provide a humane and fair alternative to vulnerable children, families, and individuals fleeing unsafe conditions and persecution."

Brett Wilkins ·

Democrats Lose Senate Majority as 82-Year-Old Leahy Heads for Hip Surgery

"It could be over for the Senate Dems now," said one policy expert in response. "This could mean they effectively lost their majority."

Jon Queally ·

Common Dreams Logo