Abstract
The Constitution leaves the regulation of about voting procedures to individual states, but also recognizes that individuals have rights to equal representation without discrimination. The tensions between these two principles have arisen several times in recent constitutional controversies, especially regarding the continued constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Husted addresses the state of Ohio’s decision to purge voter rolls of infrequent voters. Is this a legitimate regulation or a veiled attempt to disenfranchise minority citizens? The 5-4 decision in Husted raises further barriers to citizen claims that voting rights have been violated.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
See Raymond Wolfinger and Steven Rosenstone, Who Votes? (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980); see also Barry Burden, David Canon, Kenneth Mayer, and Donald Moynihan, “Election Laws, Mobilization, and Turnout: The Unanticipated Consequences of Election Reform,” 58 American Journal of Political Science 95–109 (2014).
- 2.
These include the 12th (election of the Vice President); 14th (recognition of citizenship allowing for voting); 15th (voting rights of minorities); 17th (direct election of Senators); 19th (voting rights of women); 20th (decreasing the time between the election and inauguration); 22nd (limit to presidential terms); 23rd (representation of Washington, DC); 24th (prohibition of poll taxes); and 26th (voting rights of young people).
- 3.
Article I, Section 4: “The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof”; Article II, Section 1: “Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors….”
- 4.
The United States is a “federal” system with power divided between the national government in Washington and subnational governments (states and local governments). Each has its own specific powers and sometimes they share powers (like taxation, see Chapter 8). The 10th Amendment to the Constitution gives the states all powers not granted to the central government or denied to the states.
- 5.
The 24th Amendment ended poll taxes in federal elections, and the VRA sought to put an end to poll taxes in state elections.
- 6.
The states covered in 1965 were all of Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Virginia, and parts of North Carolina; the Act was later extended to cover Alaska, Arizona, Texas, and parts of several other states.
- 7.
See Paul Joubert and Ben Crouch, “Mississippi Blacks and the Voting Rights Act of 1965,” 46 Journal of Negro Education 157–167 (1977).
- 8.
For research that shows that it is hard to predict the impact of such laws, see Adam Berinsky, “The Perverse Consequences of Electoral Reform in the United States,” 33 American Politics Research 471–491 (2005). See also Stephen Knack and James White, “Did States’ Motor Voter Programs Help the Democrats?” 26 American Politics Research 344–365 (1988).
- 9.
See Richard Pacelle, Between Law and Politics: The Solicitor General and the Structuring of Race , Gender , and Reproductive Rights Litigation (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2003).
- 10.
See Richard Pacelle, Brett Curry, and Bryan Marshall, Decision Making by the Modern Supreme Court (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011).
- 11.
See Pacelle, Between Law & Politics.
- 12.
Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute decision, page 20.
- 13.
Ibid., page 21.
- 14.
Husted Breyer dissent, page 2.
- 15.
Ibid., page 13.
- 16.
Husted Sotomayor dissent, page 1.
- 17.
Adam Liptak , “Supreme Court Upholds Ohio’s Purge of Voting Rolls,” The New York Times, 11 June 2018.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pacelle, R. (2019). Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute on Voting Rights. In: Klein, D., Marietta, M. (eds) SCOTUS 2018. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11255-4_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11255-4_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-11254-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-11255-4
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)