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.

Protester holds sign about voting

Legal experts and voting rights advocates are condemning the Justice Department's support for Ohio program that purge inactive voters. Photo: Twitter/ Roberta Penn ‏@StellaDean)

Trump DOJ's Latest Move Confirms "Worst Fears" About Voting Rights

Department's reversal on key case involving Ohio's program to purge voter rolls sparks condemnation

Jessica Corbett

Legal experts and voting rights advocates are raising alarms about a reversal in the Justice Department's long-standing interpretation of a federal law that dictates when and how states can purge voters from their rolls.

Regarding the pending Supreme Court case Husted v A. Philip Randolph Institute, President Donald Trump's Department of Justice (DOJ) filed an amicus brief (pdf) in favor of Ohio's voter-rolls maintenance program—which cancels registrations of those who do not update their registrations or vote over six years—a move that critics warn "opens the door for wide-scale unlawful purging of the voter registration rolls across our country."

"The Department of Justice's latest reversal of its position in a critical voting rights case represents just the latest example of an agency whose leadership has lost its moral compass."
—Kristen Clarke, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law

"Just last summer, the Justice Department had affirmed in this same case, before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, its view that Ohio's voter purge practices violated federal law," said Vanita Gupta, president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

"The law hasn't changed since the Department accurately told the Court that Ohio's voter purge was unlawful. The facts haven't changed. Only the leadership of the Department has changed," said Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

The 1993 National Voter Registration Act (NVRA)—further clarified in 2002 with the Help America Vote Act—requires states to maintain accurate voter rolls by removing registrations of people who have moved or died. It also says that states' maintenance programs "shall not result in the removal of the name of any person from the official list of voters registered to vote in an election for Federal office by reason of the person's failure to vote." States are authorized to remove a registrant's name from the rolls if they fail to respond to an address-verification notice, and then do not vote during a period spanning two federal elections.

Many states wait for an indication that a voter may have moved before turning to the NVRA process, but states such as Ohio send a notice "to voters who lack voter activity over two years, and removes individuals from the rolls if they both fail to respond to the notice and fail to engage in voter activity for four more years."

As a result of last year's appeals court ruling against the Ohio program, the Toledo Blade reported: "About 7,500 voters who were purged from Ohio voter registration rolls from 2011-2014 but were then reinstated at the order of a federal judge last year showed up and voted in the 2016 presidential election."

The DOJ under former President Barack Obama supported the appeals court ruling, noting that in 2010 the department had issued guidance that "addresses the precise issue presented in this case and articulates the department's position that states must have reliable evidence indicating a voter's change of address before they initiate the NVRA-prescribed process to cancel the voter's registration based on a change of residence."

However, Ohio appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case, and the new DOJ—headed by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, whose history with regard to civil rights has raised concerns since President Donlad Trump nominated him—has now revised its guidance for the law. The shift may not have widespread department support, though, as Ari Berman reported in Mother Jones: "Notably, no career lawyers from the Civil Rights Division signed the brief, as is customary, potentially signifying internal opposition to the department's new position."

It certainly has voting rights advocates worried. Gupta said: "The sudden shift in longstanding position because of a change in political administrations raises real concerns about the politicization of the Justice Department's historic role in protecting voting rights."

However, criticisms of the Trump administration and its Justice Department aren't limited to this recent shift in policy, which follows a number of other voter-related measures that have been criticized as attacks on voting rights.

"Monday's filing was further confirmation of some of our worst fears about the Trump administration's crackdown on voting rights," Gupta said. "Whether through repeated false statements about supposed mass illegal voting, creating a sham commission to pave the way for voter purges, or telling courts that it's acceptable for states to remove eligible voters from the rolls without adequate evidence, the Trump administration is leading an attack on voting rights."

"The Department of Justice's latest reversal of its position in a critical voting rights case represents just the latest example of an agency whose leadership has lost its moral compass," said Clarke.


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.

Markey, Bowman Join Climate Coalition in Urging SCOTUS Expansion

"We cannot sit idly by," said Markey, "as extremists on the Supreme Court eviscerate the authorities that the government has had for decades to combat climate change and reduce pollution."

Brett Wilkins ·


Ocasio-Cortez Says US 'Witnessing a Judicial Coup in Process'

"It is our duty to check the Court's gross overreach of power in violating people's inalienable rights and seizing for itself the powers of Congress and the president."

Brett Wilkins ·


Critics Say Biden Drilling Bonanza 'Won't Lower Gas Prices' But 'Will Worsen Climate Crisis'

"President Biden's massive public lands giveaway in the face of utter climate catastrophe is just the latest sign that his climate commitments are mere rhetoric," said one campaigner.

Kenny Stancil ·


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 ·

Common Dreams Logo