Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Voter Suppression … Again

In a 5-4 decision along partisan lines, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that Ohioโ€™s voter-suppression campaign was totally fine. Suggested Reading Ryan Coogler, Cynthia Erivo and More Reveal Their Favorite Movies of All Time The History of Brandy and Monica’s Messy, Violent Feud This Rapper Has a Truly Frightening On-Stage Experience Mid-Battle, and it’s…

In a 5-4 decision along partisan lines, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that Ohioโ€™s voter-suppression campaign was totally fine.

Video will return here when scrolled back into view
Dominique Thorne Reveals Why She Almost Passed on <em>Ironheart</em>
Dominique Thorne Reveals Why She Almost Passed on <em>Ironheart</em>

The previous sentence should be longer. It should contain an explanation on why Ohio purges its voter roles. There should probably be a convoluted paragraph filled with legalese about constitutional interpretation juxtaposed against the enumerated rights of the federal government. But this time, there is no logic or reason behind the ruling. The conservative members of the Supreme Court basically said that states can take away a citizenโ€™s fundamental right to participate in democracy simply by creating arbitrary rules, Bloomberg reports.

Letโ€™s be clear: This case had nothing to do with reducing voter fraud or stronger elections. Voter fraud does not exist in Ohio and it never has. Of the 5.6 million ballots cast in the 2016 presidential election, investigators cited 52 possible cases of voter fraud. Thatโ€™s less than .00001 of all ballots cast. In 2012, only 270 (less than .00005) of the stateโ€™s votes were suspected of being fraudulent. Voter fraud is statistically nonexistent in Ohio.

So when Ohioโ€™s Republican Legislature passed a law that resulted in thousands of voters being purged from the rolls, it was addressing a problem that didnโ€™t exist. At issue was a 1993 federal law that told states to make a โ€œreasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible votersโ€ but forbade them from removing people simply because they hadnโ€™t voted.

Ohioโ€™s law sidestepped this by sending a postcard to anyone who doesnโ€™t vote in two years. If the person doesnโ€™t respond to the postcard or vote within six years, they are removed from the list of registered voters. Therefore, the conservative majority of the court explained, the state isnโ€™t taking away anyoneโ€™s right to vote because that person failed to vote. Theyโ€™re stripping people of their rights because those people failed to return a postcard. Seems legit, right?

The Supreme Court thinks so.

Not only does this case reveal the highly politicized leanings of this conservative court, but it also follows the dismantling of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in Shelby v. Holder, which removed federal oversight from voting districts shown to have histories of discrimination.

Along with requiring voter ID and limiting voting hours, purging voter rolls is a long-standing tactic employed by Republicans that numerous studies have shown to be inaccurate and biased. But on Monday the Supreme Court said itโ€™s OK for states to flout the rules by creating their own arbitrary standards to fix a problem that never was.

Itโ€™s almost like theyโ€™re colluding to fix an election.

But this is America; that couldnโ€™t happen here.

Straight From The Root

Sign up for our free daily newsletter.