Husted v. Randolph Institute Oral Argument
2018-01-12T20:59:23-05:00https://ximage.c-spanvideo.org/eyJidWNrZXQiOiJwaWN0dXJlcy5jLXNwYW52aWRlby5vcmciLCJrZXkiOiJGaWxlc1wvNGRiXC8yMDE4MDExMjIxMDAxMTAwMV9oZC5qcGciLCJlZGl0cyI6eyJyZXNpemUiOnsiZml0IjoiY292ZXIiLCJoZWlnaHQiOjUwNn19fQ==The Supreme Court heard oral argument for Husted v. Randolph Institute. The case concerns whether Ohio’s voter purge policy violates the federal laws of the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act. Under Ohio voter rules, anyone who does not vote in a two-year timeframe is sent a notice from the Board of Elections requesting confirmation of address. If a person does not respond or does not cast a ballot in a federal election during the next four years, that voter is removed from the registration rolls. In 2015, Larry Harmon went to vote and found his voter registration had been canceled even though he had lived at the same address for more than a decade. Mr. Harmon said he never received the notice sent to him in June 2011.
The Court on June 11, 2018, ruled 5-4 that Ohio’s process of identifying and removing inactive voters from registration rolls does not violate federal laws.
The Court on June 11, 2018, ruled 5-4 that Ohio’s process of identifying and removing inactive voters from registration rolls does not violate federal laws.
The Supreme Court heard oral argument for Husted v. Randolph Institute. The case concerns whether Ohio’s voter purge policy violates the federal… read more
The Supreme Court heard oral argument for Husted v. Randolph Institute. The case concerns whether Ohio’s voter purge policy violates the federal laws of the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act. Under Ohio voter rules, anyone who does not vote in a two-year timeframe is sent a notice from the Board of Elections requesting confirmation of address. If a person does not respond or does not cast a ballot in a federal election during the next four years, that voter is removed from the registration rolls. In 2015, Larry Harmon went to vote and found his voter registration had been canceled even though he had lived at the same address for more than a decade. Mr. Harmon said he never received the notice sent to him in June 2011.
The Court on June 11, 2018, ruled 5-4 that Ohio’s process of identifying and removing inactive voters from registration rolls does not violate federal laws. close
People in this video
-
- Stephen G. Breyer Associate Justice U.S. Supreme Court
-
-
-
- Elena Kagan Associate Justice U.S. Supreme Court
- Anthony M. Kennedy Associate Justice U.S. Supreme Court
-
-
-
Paul M. Smith Attorney
-
Hosting Organization
Purchase a Download
Husted v. Randolph Institute Oral Argument
-
MP4 video - Standard
- Price:
- $6.99
-
MP3 audio - Standard
- Price:
- $0.99
Related Video
-
Gill v. Whitford Oral Argument
The Supreme Court heard oral argument for Gill v. Whitford, a case involving redistricting in Wisconsin. A lower court in 2016…
-
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky Oral Argument
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, a case concerning whether a Minnesota Election Day law violates a person’s…
-
Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31 Oral Argument
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31…
-
United States v. Microsoft Corporation Oral Argument
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States v. Microsoft Corporation, a case dealing with warrant compliance…
User Created Clips from This Video
-
- 35 seconds
- 3 views