HUSTED v. A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_________________

No. 16–980

_________________

JON HUSTED, OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE, PETITIONER v. A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE, et al.

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit

---

---

 Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Ginsburg, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan join, dissenting.

 Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 requires States to “conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters by reason of . . . a change in the residence of the registrant.” §8(a)(4), 107 Stat. 82–83, 52 U. S. C. §20507(a)(4). This case concerns the State of Ohio’s change-of-residence removal program (called the “Supplemental Process”), under which a registered voter’s failure to vote in a single federal election begins a process that may well result in the removal of that voter’s name from the federal voter rolls. See infra, at 7. The question is whether the Supplemental Process violates §8, which prohibits a State from removing registrants from the federal voter roll “by reason of the person’s failure to vote.” §20507(b)(2). In my view, Ohio’s program does just that. And I shall explain why and how that is so.

I

 This case concerns the manner in which States maintain federal voter registration lists. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a number of “[r]estrictive registration laws and administrative procedures” came into use across the  United States—from literacy tests to the poll tax and from strict residency requirements to “selective purges.” H. R. Rep. No. 103–9, p. 2 (1993). Each was designed “to keep certain groups of citizens from voting” and “discourage participation.” Ibid. By 1965, the Voting Rights Act abolished some of the “more obvious impediments to registration,” but still, in 1993, Congress concluded that it had “unfinished business” to attend to in this domain. Id., at 3. That year, Congress enacted the National Voter Registration Act “to protect the integrity of the electoral process,” “increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal office,” and “ensure that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained.” §20501(b). It did so mindful that “the purpose of our election process is not to test the fortitude and determination of the voter, but to discern the will of the majority.” S. Rep. No. 103–6, p. 3 (1993).

 In accordance with these aims, §8 of the Registration Act sets forth a series of requirements that States must satisfy in their “administration of voter registration for elections for Federal office.” §20507. Ohio’s Supplemental Process fails to comport with these requirements; it erects needless hurdles to voting of the kind Congress sought to eliminate by enacting the Registration Act. Four of §8’s provisions are critical to this case: subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d). The text of each subsection is detailed and contains multiple parts. Given the complexity of the statute, readers should consult these provisions themselves (see Appendix A, infra, at 21–24) and try to keep the thrust of those provisions in mind while reading this opinion. At the outset, I shall address each of them.

A

1

 We begin with subsection (a)’s “Reasonable Program” requirement. That provision says that “each State shall”:

 “conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters by reason of . . . a change in the residence of the registrant, in accordance with subsections (b), (c), and (d).” §20507(a)(4).

This provision tells each State that it must try to remove ineligible voters from the rolls, that it must act reasonably in doing so, and that, when it does so, it must follow the rules contained in the next three subsections of §8—namely, subsections (b), (c), and (d).

2

 Subsection (b)’s “Failure-to-Vote” Clause generally forbids state change-of-residence removal programs that rely upon a registrant’s failure to vote as a basis for removing the registrant’s name from the federal voter roll. Before 1993, when Congress enacted this prohibition, many States would assume a registered voter had changed his address, and consequently remove that voter from the rolls, simply because the registrant had failed to vote. Recognizing that many registered voters who do not vote “may not have moved,” S. Rep. No. 103–6, at 17, Congress consequently prohibited States from using the failure to vote as a proxy for moving and thus a basis for purging the voter’s name from the rolls. The Failure-to-Vote Clause, as originally enacted, said:

“Any State program or activity to protect the integrity of the electoral process by ensuring the maintenance of an accurate and current voter registration roll for elections for Federal office . . . 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.” 107 Stat. 83; see §20507(b)(2).

 As I shall discuss, Congress later clarified that “using  the procedures described in subsections (c) and (d) to remove an individual” from the federal voter roll is permissible and does not violate the Failure-to-Vote Clause. See §8(b)(2) of the National Voter Registration Act, 107 Stat. 83, and as amended, 116 Stat. 1728, 52 U. S. C. §20507(b)(2).

3

 Subsection (c), which is entitled “Voter Removal Programs,” explains how “[a] State may meet the requirement of subsection (a)(4).” §20507(c)(1). Because subsection (a)(4) itself incorporates all of the relevant requirements of subsections (b), (c), and (d) within it, see §20507(a)(4), subsection (c) sets forth one way a State can comply with the basic requirements of §8 at issue in this case (including subsection (b)). A State’s removal program qualifies under subsection (c) if the following two things are true about the program:

 “(A) change-of-address information supplied by the Postal Service through its licensees is used to identify registrants whose addresses may have changed; and

 “(B) if it appears [that] the registrant has moved to a different residence address not in the same registrar’s jurisdiction, the registrar uses the notice procedure described in subsection (d)(2) to confirm the change of address.” §20507(c)(1).

The upshot is that subsection (c) explains one way a State may comply with subsection (a)’s Reasonable Program requirement without violating subsection (b)’s Failure-to-Vote prohibition. It is a roadmap that points to a two-step removal process. At step 1, States first identify registered voters whose addresses may have changed; here, subsection (c) points to one (but not the only) method a State may use to do so. At step 2, subsection (c) explains,  States must “confirm the change of address” by using a special notice procedure, which is further described in  subsection (d).

4

 Subsection (d) sets forth the final procedure, which Ohio refers to as the “Confirmation Procedure.” Brief for Petitioner 7. The statute makes clear that a State must use the Confirmation Procedure to “confirm” a change of address in respect to any registered voter it initially identifies as someone who has likely changed addresses. It works as follows: the State must send the registrant identified as having likely moved a special kind of notice by forwardable mail. That notice must warn the registrant that his or her name will be removed from the voter roll unless the registrant either returns an attached card and confirms his or her current address in writing or votes in an election during the period covering the next two federal elections. In a sense, the notice a State is required to send as part of the Confirmation Procedure gives registered voters whom the State has identified as likely ineligible a “last chance” to correct the record before being removed from the federal registration list. The Confirmation Procedure is mandatory for all change-of-residence removals, regardless of the method the State uses to make its initial identification of registrants whose addresses may have changed. In particular, subsection (d) says:

 “A State shall not remove the name of a registrant from the official list of eligible voters . . . on the ground that the registrant has changed residence unless the registrant [either]—

 “(A) confirms in writing that the registrant has changed residence to a place outside the registrar’s jurisdiction in which the registrant is registered; or

 “(B)(i) has failed to respond to a notice described in [subsection (d)(2)]; and (ii) has not voted [in two subsequent federal elections].” §20507(d)(1).

  Subsection (d)(2) then goes on to describe (in consider- able detail) the “last chance” notice the State must send to the registrant. In particular, the notice must be sent by forwardable mail so that the notice will reach the registrant even if the registrant has changed addresses. It must include a postage-prepaid, preaddressed “return card” that the registrant may send back to the State to confirm or correct the State’s record of his or her current address. And, the notice must warn the registrant that unless the card is returned, if the registrant does not vote in the next two federal elections, then his or her name will be removed from the list of eligible voters.

*  *  *

 In sum, §8 tells States the following:

In general, establish a removal-from-registration program that “makes a reasonable effort” to remove voters who become ineligible because they change residences.

Do not target registered voters for removal from the registration roll because they have failed to vote. However, “using the procedures described in subsections (c) and (d) to remove an individual” from the federal voter roll is permissible and does not violate the Failure-to-Vote prohibition.

The procedures described in subsections (c) and (d) consist of a two-step removal process in which at step 1, the State uses change-of-address information (which the State may obtain, for instance, from the Postal Service) to identify registrants whose addresses may have changed; and then at step 2, the State must use the mandatory “last chance” notice procedure described in subsection (d) to confirm the change of address.

The “last chance” confirmation notice must be sent by forwardable mail. It must also include a postage- prepaid, preaddressed “return card” that the registrant may send back to the State verifying his or her current address. And it must warn the registrant that unless the card is returned, if the registrant does not vote in the next two federal elections, then his or her name will be removed from the list of eligible voters.

B

 The Supplemental Process, Ohio’s program for removing registrants from the federal rolls on the ground that the voter has changed his address, is much simpler. Each of Ohio’s 88 boards of elections sends its version of subsection (d)’s “last chance” notice to those on a list “of individuals who, according to the board’s records, have not engaged in certain kinds of voter activity”—including “casting a ballot”—for a period of “generally two years.” Record 1507. Accordingly, each board’s list can include registered voters who failed to vote in a single federal election. And anyone on the list who “continues to be inactive” by failing to vote for the next “four consecutive years, including two federal elections,” and fails to respond to the notice is removed from the federal voter roll. Id., at 1509. Under the Supplemental Process, a person’s failure to vote is the sole basis on which the State identifies a registrant as a person whose address may have changed and the sole reason Ohio initiates a registered voter’s removal using subsection (d)’s Confirmation Procedure.

II

 Section 8 requires that Ohio’s program “mak[e] a reasonable effort to remove” ineligible registrants from the rolls because of “a change in the residence of the registrant,” and it must do so “in accordance with subsections (b), (c), and (d).” §20507(a)(4)(B). In my view, Ohio’s program is unlawful under §8 in two respects. It first  violates subsection (b)’s Failure-to-Vote prohibition because Ohio uses nonvoting in a manner that is expressly prohibited and not otherwise authorized under §8. In addition, even if that were not so, the Supplemental Process also fails to satisfy subsection (a)’s Reasonable Program requirement, since using a registrant’s failure to vote is not a reasonable method for identifying voters whose registrations are likely invalid (because they have changed their addresses).

 First, as to subsection (b)’s Failure-to-Vote Clause, recall that Ohio targets for removal registrants who fail to vote. In identifying registered voters who have likely changed residences by looking to see if those registrants failed to vote, Ohio’s program violates subsection (b)’s express prohibition on “[a]ny State program or activity [that] result[s] in the removal” of a registered voter “by reason of the person’s failure to vote.” §20507(b)(2) (emphasis added). In my view, these words are most naturally read to prohibit a State from considering a registrant’s failure to vote as part of any process “that is used to start, or has the effect of starting, a purge of the voter rolls.” H. R. Rep. No. 103–9, at 15. In addition, Congress enacted the Failure-to-Vote Clause to prohibit “the elimination of names of voters from the rolls solely due to [a registrant’s] failure to respond to a mailing.” Ibid. But that is precisely what Ohio’s Supplemental Process does. The program violates subsection (b)’s prohibition because under it, a registrant who fails to vote in a single federal election, fails to respond to a forwardable notice, and fails to vote for another four years may well be purged. Record 1508. If the registrant had voted at any point, the registrant would not have been removed. See supra, at 7; infra, at 11–14.

 Ohio does use subsection (d)’s Confirmation Procedure, but that procedure alone does not satisfy §8’s requirements. How do we know that Ohio’s use of the Confirma tion Procedure alone cannot count as statutorily significant? The statute’s basic structure along with its language makes clear that this is so.

 In respect to language, §8 says that the function of subsection (d)’s Confirmation Procedure is “to confirm the change of address” whenever the State has already “identif[ied] registrants whose addresses may have changed.” §§20507(c)(1)(A), (d)(2). The function of the Confirmation Procedure is not to make the initial identification of registrants whose addresses may have changed. As a matter of English usage, you cannot confirm that an event happened without already having some reason to believe at least that it might have happened. Black’s Law Dictionary 298 (6th ed. 1990) (defining “confirm” as meaning “[t]o complete or establish that which was imperfect or uncertain”).

 Ohio, of course, says that it has a ground for believing that those persons they remove from the rolls have, in fact, changed their address, but the ground is the fact that the person did not vote—the very thing that the Failure-to-Vote Clause forbids Ohio to use as a basis for removing a registered voter from the registration roll.

 In respect to structure, two statutory illustrations make clear what the word “confirm” already suggests, namely, that the Confirmation Procedure is a necessary but not a sufficient procedure for removing a registered voter from the voter roll. The first illustration of how the Confirmation Procedure is supposed to function appears in subsection (c), which describes a removal process under which the State first identifies registrants who have likely changed addresses and then “confirm[s]” that change of residence using the Confirmation Procedure and sending the required “last chance” notice. §20507(c)(1) (emphasis added). The identification method subsection (c) says a State may use is “change-of-address information supplied by the Postal Service.” §20507(c)(1)(A). A person does not notify the Postal Service that he is moving unless he is  likely to move or has already moved. And, as the Registration Act says, “if it appears from change-of-address provided by the Postal Service that . . . the registrant has moved to a different residence not in the same registrar’s jurisdiction,” the State has a reasonable (hence acceptable) basis for “us[ing] the notice procedure described in sub- section (d)(2) to confirm the change of address.” §20507(c)(1)(B).

 The second illustration of how the Confirmation Procedure is supposed to function appears in a portion of the statute I have not yet discussed—namely, §6 of the National Voter Registration Act, which sets out the rules for voter registration by mail. See §6, 107 Stat. 80, 52 U. S. C. §20505. In particular, §6(d), entitled “Undelivered Notices,” says that, “[i]f a notice of the disposition of a mail voter registration application . . . is sent by nonforwardable mail and is returned undelivered,” at that point the State “may proceed in accordance with section 8(d),” namely, the Confirmation Procedure, and send the same “last chance” notice that I have just discussed. §20505(d) (emphasis added).

 Note that §6(d) specifies a nonforwardable mailing—and not a forwardable mailing, like one specified in §8(d). This distinction matters. Why? If a person moves, a forward- able mailing will be sent along (i.e., “forwarded”) to that person’s new address; in contrast, a nonforwardable mailing will not be forwarded to the person’s new address but instead will be returned to the sender and marked “undeliverable.” And so a nonforwardable mailing that is returned to the sender marked “undeliverable” indicates that the intended recipient may have moved. After all, the Postal Service, as the majority points out, returns mail marked “undeliverable” if the intended recipient has moved—not if the person still lives at his old address. Ante, at 6, and n. 3.

 Under §6(d), the Registration Act expressly endorses nonforwardable mailings as a reasonable method for States to use at step 1 to identify registrants whose addresses may have changed before the State proceeds to step 2 and sends the forwardable notice required under subsection (d)’s Confirmation Procedure. Specifically, §6(d) explains that, if a State sends its registrants a mailing by nonforwardable mail (which States often do), and if “[that mailing] is returned undelivered,” the State has a fairly good reason for believing that the person has moved and therefore “may proceed in accordance with” §8(d) by sending the “last chance” forwardable notice that the Confirmation Procedure requires. §20505(d). In contrast to a nonforwardable notice that is returned undeliverable, which tells the State that a registrant has likely moved, a forwardable notice that elicits no response whatsoever tells the State close to nothing at all. That is because, as I shall discuss, most people who receive confirmation notices from the State simply do not send back the “return card” attached to that mailing—whether they have moved or not.

 In sum, §6(d), just like §§8(a) and 8(c), indicates that the State, as an initial matter, must use a reasonable method to identify a person who has likely moved and then must send that person a confirmatory notice that will in effect give him a “last chance” to remain on the rolls. And these provisions thus tend to deny, not to support, the majority’s suggestion that somehow sending a “last chance” notice is itself a way (other than nonvoting) to identify someone who has likely moved.

 I concede that some individuals who have, in fact, moved do, in fact, send a return card back to the State making clear that they have moved. And some registrants do send back a card saying that they have not moved. Thus, the Confirmation Procedure will sometimes help provide confirmation of what the initial identification procedure is supposed to accomplish: finding registrants  who have probably moved. But more often than not, the State fails to receive anything back from the registrant, and the fact that the State hears nothing from the registrant essentially proves nothing at all.

 Anyone who doubts this last statement need simply consult figures in the record along with a few generally available statistics. As a general matter, the problem these numbers reveal is as follows: Very few registered voters move outside of their county of registration. But many registered voters fail to vote. Most registered voters who fail to vote also fail to respond to the State’s “last chance” notice. And the number of registered voters who both fail to vote and fail to respond to the “last chance” notice exceeds the number of registered voters who move outside of their county each year.

 Consider the following facts. First, Ohio tells us that a small number of Americans—about 4% of all Americans—move outside of their county each year. Record 376. (The majority suggests the relevant number is 10%, ante, at 2, but that includes people who move within their county.) At the same time, a large number of American voters fail to vote, and Ohio voters are no exception. In 2014, around 59% of Ohio’s registered voters failed to vote. See Brief for League of Women Voters et al. as Amici Curiae 16, and n. 12 (citing Ohio Secretary of State, 2014 Official Election Results).

 Although many registrants fail to vote and only a small number move, under the Supplemental Process, Ohio uses a registrant’s failure to vote to identify that registrant as a person whose address has likely changed. The record shows that in 2012 Ohio identified about 1.5 million registered voters—nearly 20% of its 8 million registered voters—as likely ineligible to remain on the federal voter roll because they changed their residences. Record 475. Ohio then sent those 1.5 million registered voters subsubsection (d) “last chance” confirmation notices. In response to  those 1.5 million notices, Ohio only received back about 60,000 return cards (or 4%) which said, in effect, “You are right, Ohio. I have, in fact, moved.” Ibid. In addition, Ohio received back about 235,000 return cards which said, in effect, “You are wrong, Ohio, I have not moved.” In the end, however, there were more than 1,000,000 notices—the vast majority of notices sent—to which Ohio received back no return card at all. Ibid.

 What about those registered voters—more than 1 million strong—who did not send back their return cards? Is there any reason at all (other than their failure to vote) to think they moved? The answer to this question must be no. There is no reason at all. First, those 1 million or so voters accounted for about 13% of Ohio’s voting population. So if those 1 million or so registered voters (or even half of them) had, in fact, moved, then vastly more people must move each year in Ohio than is generally true of the roughly 4% of all Americans who move to a different county nationwide (not all of whom are registered voters). See Id., at 376. But there is no reason to think this. Ohio offers no such reason. And the streets of Ohio’s cities are not filled with moving vans; nor has Cleveland become the Nation’s residential moving companies’ headquarters. Thus, I think it fair to assume (because of the human tendency not to send back cards received in the mail, confirmed strongly by the actual numbers in this record) the following: In respect to change of residence, the failure of more than 1 million Ohio voters to respond to forward-able notices (the vast majority of those sent) shows nothing at all that is statutorily significant.

 To put the matter in the present statutory context: When a State relies upon a registrant’s failure to vote to initiate the Confirmation Procedure, it violates the Failure-to-Vote Clause, and a State’s subsequent use of the Confirmation Procedure cannot save the State’s program from that defect. Even if that were not so, a nonreturned con firmation notice adds nothing to the State’s understanding of whether the voter has moved or not. And that, I repeat, is because a nonreturned confirmation notice (as the numbers show) cannot reasonably indicate a change of address.

 Finally, let us return to §8’s basic mandate and purpose. Ohio’s program must “mak[e] a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters” from its federal rolls on change-of-residence grounds. §20507(a)(4) (emphasis added). Reasonableness under §8(a) is primarily measured in terms of the program’s compliance with “subsections (b), (c), and (d).” §20507(a)(4)(B). That includes the broad prohibition on removing registrants because of their failure to vote. More generally, the statute seeks to “protect the integrity of the electoral process” and “ensure that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained.” §§20501(b)(3), (4). Ohio’s system adds to its non-voting-based identification system a factor that has no tendency to reveal accurately whether the registered voter has changed residences. Nothing plus one is still one. And, if that “one” consists of a failure to vote, then Ohio’s program also fails to make the requisite “reasonable effort” to comply with subsection (a)’s statutory mandate. It must violate the statute.

III

 The majority tries to find support in two provisions of a different statute, namely, the Help America Vote Act of 2002, 116 Stat. 1666, the pertinent part of which is reprinted in Appendix B, infra, at 25–26. The first is entitled “Clarification of Ability of Election Officials To Remove Registrants From Official List of Voters on Grounds of Change of Residence.” §903, id., at 1728. That provision was added to the National Voter Registration Act’s Failure-to-Vote Clause, subsection (b)(2), which says that a State’s registrant removal program “shall not result in the removal of the name of any person from the official list  . . . by reason of the person’s failure to vote.” §20507(b)(2); see supra, at 3. The “Clarification” adds:

“except that nothing in this paragraph may be construed to prohibit a State from using the procedures described in subsections (c) and (d) to remove an individual from the official list of eligible voters if the individual—(A) has not either notified the applicable registrar (in person or in writing) or responded . . . to the [confirmation] notice sent by the applicable registrar; and then (B) has not voted or appeared to vote in 2 or more consecutive general elections for Federal office.” §903, id., at 1728 (emphasis added).

 This amendment simply clarified that the use of nonvoting specified in subsections (c) and (d) does not violate the Failure-to-Vote Clause. The majority asks why, if the matter is so simple, Congress added the new language at all. The answer to this question is just what the title attached to the new language says, namely, Congress added the new language for purposes of clarification. And the new language clarified any confusion States may have had about the relationship between, on the one hand, subsection (b)’s broad prohibition on any use of a person’s failure to vote in removal programs and, on the other hand, the requirement in subsections (c) and (d) that a State consider whether a registrant has failed to vote at the end of the Confirmation Procedure. This reading finds support in several other provisions in both the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote  Act, which make similar clarifications. See, e.g., §20507(c)(2)(B) (clarifying that a particular prohibition “shall not be construed to preclude” States from comply- ing with separate statutory obligations); see also §§20510(d)(2) (similar rule of construction), 21081(c)(1), 21083(a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(A)(iii), (b)(5), (d)(1)(A)–(B); 21084.

 The majority also points out that another provision of  the Help America Vote Act, §303. See §303(a)(4), 116 Stat. 1708, 52 U. S. C. §21083(a)(4). That provision once again reaffirms that a State’s registration list-maintenance program must “mak[e] a reasonable effort to remove registrants who are ineligible to vote” and adds that “consistent with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 . . . registrants who have not responded to a notice and who have not voted in 2 consecutive general elections for Federal office shall be removed from the official list of eligible voters, except that no registrant may be removed solely by reason of a failure to vote.” §21083(a)(4)(A) (emphasis added).

 The majority tries to make much of the word “solely.” But the majority makes too much of too little. For one thing, the Registration Act’s Failure-to-Vote Clause under subsection (b) does not use the word “solely.” And §303 of the Help America Vote Act tells us to interpret its language (which includes the word “solely”) “consistent with the” Registration Act. §21083(a)(4)(A). For another, the Help America Vote Act says that “nothing in this [Act] may be construed to authorize or require conduct prohib- ited under [the National Voter Registration Act], or to su- persede, restrict or limit the application of . . . [t]he National Voter Registration Act.” §21145(a)(4).

 The majority’s view of the statute leaves the Registration Act’s Failure-to-Vote Clause with nothing to do in respect to change-of-address programs. Let anyone who doubts this read subsection (d) (while remaining aware of the fact that it requires the sending of a confirmation notice) and ask himself or herself: What else is there for the Failure-to-Vote Clause to do? The answer is nothing. Section 8(d) requires States to send a confirmation notice for all change-of-address removals, and, in the majority’s view, failing to respond to that forwardable notice is always a valid cause for removal, even if that notice was sent by reason of the registrant’s initial failure to vote.  Thus the Failure-to-Vote Clause is left with no independent weight since complying with subsection (d) shields a State from violating subsection (b). To repeat the point, under the majority’s view, the Failure-to-Vote Clause is superfluous in respect to change-of-address programs: subsection (d) already accomplishes everything the major- ity says is required of a State’s removal program—namely, the sending of a notice.

 Finally, even if we were to accept the majority’s premise that the question here is whether Ohio’s system removes registered voters from the registration list “solely by reason of a failure to vote,” that would not change anything. As I have argued, Part II, supra, the failure to respond to a forwardable notice is an irrelevant factor in terms of what it shows about whether that registrant changed his or her residence. To add an irrelevant factor to a failure to vote, say, a factor like having gone on vacation or having eaten too large a meal, cannot change Ohio’s sole use of “failure to vote” into something it is not.

IV

 Justice Thomas, concurring, suggests that my reading of the statute “ ‘raises serious constitutional doubts.’ ” Ante, at 1 (quoting Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (slip op., at 2)). He believes that it “would seriously interfere with the States’ constitutional authority to set and enforce voter qualifications.” Ante, at 2. At the same time, the majority “assume[s]” that “Congress has the constitutional authority to limit voting eligibility requirements in the way respondents suggest.” Ante, at 16, n. 5. But it suggests possible agreement with Justice Thomas, for it makes this assumption only “for the sake of argument.” Ibid.

 Our cases indicate, however, that §8 neither exceeds Congress’ authority under the Elections Clause, Art. I, §4, nor interferes with the State’s authority under the Voter  Qualification Clause, Art. 1, §2. Indeed, this Court’s precedents interpreting the scope of congressional authority under the Elections Clause make clear that Congress has the constitutional power to adopt the statute before us.

 The Elections Clause states:

“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.” U. S. Const., Art. I, §4, cl. 1.

The Court has frequently said that “[t]he Clause’s substantive scope is broad,” and that it “empowers Congress to pre-empt state regulations governing the ‘Times, Places and Manner’ of holding congressional elections.” Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc., 570 U. S. 1, 8 (2013). We have long held that “[t]he power of Congress over the ‘Times, Places and Manner’ of congressional elections ‘is paramount, and may be exercised at any time, and to any extent which it deems expedient; and so far as it is exercised, and no farther, the regulations effected supersede those of the State which are inconsistent therewith.’ ” Id., at 9 (quoting Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371, 392 (1880)).

 The words “ ‘Times, Places, and Manner,’ ” we have said, are “ ‘comprehensive words’ ” that “ ‘embrace authority to provide a complete code for congressional elections.’ ” Tribal Council, supra, at 8–9 (quoting Smiley v. Holm, 285 U. S. 355, 366 (1932)). That “complete code” includes the constitutional authority to enact “regulations relating to ‘registration.’ ” Ibid.; see also Cook v. Gralike, 531 U. S. 510, 524 (2001) (same); Roudebush v. Hartke, 405 U. S. 15, 24–25 (1972). That is precisely what §8 does.

 Neither does §8 tell the States “who may vote in” federal elections. Tribal Council, 570 U. S., at 16. Instead, §8 considers the manner of registering those whom the State  itself considers qualified. Unlike the concurrence, I do not read our precedent as holding to the contrary. But see id., at 26 (Thomas, J., dissenting). And, our precedent strongly suggests that, given the importance of voting in a democracy, a State’s effort (because of failure to vote) to remove from a federal election roll those it considers otherwise qualified is unreasonable. Cf. Carrington v. Rash, 380 U. S. 89, 91–93, 96 (1965) (State can impose “reasonable residence restrictions on the availability of the ballot” but cannot forbid otherwise qualified members of military to vote); see also Kramer v. Union Free School Dist. No. 15, 395 U. S. 621, 625 (1969) (“States have the power to impose reasonable citizenship, age, and residency requirements on the availability of the ballot” (emphasis added)); Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U. S. 663, 668 (1966) (“To introduce wealth or payment of a fee as a measure of a voter’s qualifications is to introduce a capricious or irrelevant factor”).

 For these reasons, with respect, I dissent.

APPENDIXES

A

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993

“Sec. 2. Findings and Purposes.

“(a) Findings.—The Congress finds that—

 “(1) The right of citizens of the United States to vote is a fundamental right;

 “(2) it is the duty of the Federal, State, and local governments to promote the exercise of that right; and

 “(3) discriminatory and unfair registration laws and procedures can have a direct and damaging effect on voter participation in elections for Federal office and disproportionately harm voter participation . . . , including racial minorities.

“(b) Purposes.—The purposes of this Act are—

  “(1) to establish procedures that will increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal office;

 “(2) to make it possible for Federal, State, and local governments to implement this Act in a manner that enhances the participation of eligible citizens as voters in elections for Federal office;

 “(3) to protect the integrity of the electoral process; and

 “(4) to ensure that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained.” 107 Stat. 77.

“Sec. 5. Simultaneous Application for Voter Registration and Application for Motor Vehicle Driver’s License.

 “(d) Change of Address.—Any change of address form submitted in accordance with State law for purposes of a State motor vehicle driver's license shall serve as notification of change of address for voter registration with respect to elections for Federal office for the registrant in- volved unless the registrant states on the form that the change of address is not for voter registration purposes.” Id., at 79.

“Sec. 6. Mail Registration.

 “(d) Undelivered Notices. If a notice of the disposition of a mail voter registration application under section 8(a)(2) is sent by nonforwardable mail and is returned undelivered, the registrar may proceed in accordance with section 8(d).” Id., at 80.

“Sec. 8. Requirements With Respect to Admini-stration of Voter Registration.

 “(a) In General—In the administration of voter registration for elections for Federal office, each State shall—

 “(1) ensure that any eligible applicant is registered to vote in an election—

 .      .      .      .      .

 “(2) require the appropriate State election official to send notice to each applicant of the disposition of the application;

 “(3) provide that the name of a registrant may not be removed from the official list of eligible voters except—

 “(A) at the request of the registrant;

 “(B) as provided by State law, by reason of criminal conviction or mental incapacity; or

 “(C) as provided under paragraph (4);

 “(4) conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters by reason of—

 “(A) the death of the registrant; or

 “(B) a change in the residence of the registrant, in accordance with subsections (b), (c), and (d);

.      .      .      .      .

 “(b) Confirmation of Voter Registration.—Any State program or activity to protect the integrity of the electoral process by ensuring the maintenance of an accurate and current voter registration roll for elections for Federal office—

 “(1) shall be uniform, nondiscriminatory, and in compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U. S. C. 1973 et seq.); and

 “(2) 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.

 “(c) Voter Removal Programs.—(1) A State may meet the requirement of subsection (a)(4) by establishing a program under which—

 “(A) change-of-address information supplied by the Postal Service through its licensees is used to identify registrants whose addresses may have changed; and

 “(B) if it appears from information provided by the  Postal Service that—

 “(i) a registrant has moved to a different residence address in the same registrar's jurisdiction in which the registrant is currently registered, the registrar changes the registration records to show the new address and sends the registrant a notice of the change by forwardable mail and a postage prepaid pre-addressed return form by which the registrant may verify or correct the address information; or

 “(ii) the registrant has moved to a different residence address not in the same registrar's jurisdiction, the registrar uses the notice procedure described in subsection (d)(2) to confirm the change of address.

 “(2)(A) A State shall complete, not later than 90 days prior to the date of a primary or general election for Federal office, any program the purpose of which is to systematically remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters.

 “(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not be construed to pre- clude—

 “(i) the removal of names from official lists of voters on a basis described in paragraph (3)(A) or (B) or (4)(A) of subsection (a); or

 “(ii) correction of registration records pursuant to this Act.

 “(d) Removal of Names from Voting Rolls.—“(1) A State shall not remove the name of a registrant from the official list of eligible voters in elections for Federal office on the ground that the registrant has changed residence unless the registrant—

 “(A) confirms in writing that the registrant has changed residence to a place outside the registrar’s jurisdiction in which the registrant is registered; or

 “(B)(i) has failed to respond to a notice described in paragraph (2); and

 “(ii) has not voted or appeared to vote (and, if necessary,  correct the registrar's record of the registrant's address) in an election during the period beginning on the date of the notice and ending on the day after the date of the second general election for Federal office that occurs after the date of the notice.

 “(2) A notice is described in this paragraph if it is a postage prepaid and pre-addressed return card, sent by forwardable mail, on which the registrant may state his or her current address, together with a notice to the following effect:

 “(A) If the registrant did not change his or her residence, or changed residence but remained in the registrar’s jurisdiction, the registrant should return the card not later than the time provided for mail registration under subsection (a)(1)(B). If the card is not returned, affirmation or confirmation of the registrant’s address may be required before the registrant is permitted to vote in a Federal election during the period beginning on the date of the notice and ending on the day after the date of the second general election for Federal office that occurs after the date of the notice, and if the registrant does not vote in an election during that period the registrant’s name will be removed from the list of eligible voters.

 “(B) If the registrant has changed residence to a place outside the registrar’s jurisdiction in which the registrant is registered, information concerning how the registrant can continue to be eligible to vote.

 “(3) A voting registrar shall correct an official list of eligible voters in elections for Federal office in accordance with change of residence information obtained in conformance with this subsection.” Id., at 82–84.

B

The Help America Vote Act of 2002

“Sec. 303. Computerized Statewide Voter Registration List Requirements and Require-ments for Voters who Register by Mail.

 “(a) Computerized Statewide Voter Registration List Requirements.—

.      .      .      .      .

 “(4) Minimum Standard for Accuracy of State voter Registration Records.—The State election system shall include provisions to ensure that voter registration records in the State are accurate and are updated regularly, including the following:

 “(A) A system of file maintenance that makes a reason- able effort to remove registrants who are ineligible to vote from the official list of eligible voters. Under such system, consistent with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg et seq.), registrants who have not responded to a notice and who have not voted in 2 consecutive general elections for Federal office shall be removed from the official list of eligible voters, except that no registrant may be removed solely by reason of a failure to vote.

 “(B) Safeguards to ensure that eligible voters are not removed in error from the official list of eligible voters.” 116 Stat. 1708–1710.

“Sec. 903. Clarification of Ability of Election Officials to Remove Registrants from Official List of Voters on Grounds of Change of Residence.

 “Section 8(b)(2) of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 . . . is amended by striking the period at the end and inserting the following: ‘‘, except that nothing in this paragraph may be construed to prohibit a State from using the procedures described in subsections (c) and (d) to remove an individual from the official list of eligible voters if the individual—

 ‘‘(A) has not either notified the applicable registrar (in person or in writing) or responded during the period described in subparagraph (B) to the notice sent by the  applicable registrar; and then

 ‘‘(B) has not voted or appeared to vote in 2 or more consecutive general elections for Federal office.’’ Id., at 1728.

“Sec. 906. No Effect on Other Laws.

 “(a) In General.— . . . [N]othing in this Act may be construed to authorize or require conduct prohibited under any of the following laws, or to supersede, restrict, or limit the application of such laws [including]:

.      .      .      .      .

 “(4) The National Voter Registration Act of 1993.” Id., at 1729.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_________________

No. 16–980

_________________

JON HUSTED, OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE, PETITIONER v. A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE, et al.

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit

---

---

 Justice Sotomayor, dissenting.

 I join the principal dissent in full because I agree that the statutory text plainly supports respondents’ interpretation. I write separately to emphasize how that reading is bolstered by the essential purposes stated explicitly in the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) to increase the registration and enhance the participation  of eligible voters in federal elections. 52 U. S. C. §§20501(b)(1)–(2). Congress enacted the NVRA against the backdrop of substantial efforts by States to disenfranchise low-income and minority voters, including programs that purged eligible voters from registration lists because they failed to vote in prior elections. The Court errs in ignoring this history and distorting the statutory text to arrive at a conclusion that not only is contrary to the plain language of the NVRA but also contradicts the essential purposes of the statute, ultimately sanctioning the very purging that Congress expressly sought to protect against.

 Concerted state efforts to prevent minorities from voting and to undermine the efficacy of their votes are an unfortunate feature of our country’s history. See Schuette v. BAMN, 572 U. S. 291, 337–338 (2014) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting). As the principal dissent explains, “[i]n the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a number of  ‘[r]estrictive registration laws and administrative procedures’ came to use across the United States.” Ante, at 1–2 (opinion of Breyer, J.). States enforced “poll tax[es], literacy tests, residency requirements, selective purges, . . . and annual registration requirements,” which were developed “to keep certain groups of citizens from voting.” H. R. Rep. No. 103–9, p. 2 (1993). Particularly relevant here, some States erected procedures requiring voters to renew registrations “whenever [they] moved or failed to vote in an election,” which “sharply depressed turnout, particularly among blacks and immigrants.” A. Keyssar, The Right To Vote 124 (2009). Even after the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, many obstacles remained. See ante, at 2 (opinion of Breyer, J.).

 Congress was well aware of the “long history of such list cleaning mechanisms which have been used to violate the basic rights of citizens” when it enacted the NVRA. S. Rep. No. 103–6, p. 18 (1993). Congress thus made clear in the statutory findings that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote is a fundamental right,” that “it is the duty of the Federal, State, and local governments to promote the exercise of that right,” and that “discriminatory and unfair registration laws and procedures can have a direct and damaging effect on voter participation . . . and disproportionately harm voter participation by various groups, including racial minorities.” 52 U. S. C. §20501(a). In light of those findings, Congress enacted the NVRA with the express purposes of “increas[ing] the number of eligible citizens who register to vote” and “enhanc[ing] the participation of eligible citizens as voters.” §§20501(b)(1)–(2). These stated purposes serve at least in part to counteract the history of voter suppression, as evidenced by §20507(b)(2), which forbids “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.” Ibid.

  Of course, Congress also expressed other objectives, “to protect the integrity of the electoral process” and “to ensure that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained.” §§20501(b)(3)–(4).¹ The statute contemplates, however, that States can, and indeed must, further all four stated objectives. As relevant here, Congress crafted the NVRA with the understanding that, while States are required to make a “reasonable effort” to remove ineligible voters from the registration lists, §20507(a)(4), such removal programs must be developed in a manner that “prevent[s] poor and illiterate voters from being caught in a purge system which will require them to needlessly re-register” and “prevent[s] abuse which has a disparate impact on minority communities,” S. Rep. No. 103–6, at 18.

 Ohio’s Supplemental Process reflects precisely the type of purge system that the NVRA was designed to prevent. Under the Supplemental Process, Ohio will purge a registrant from the rolls after six years of not voting, e.g., sitting out one Presidential election and two midterm elections, and after failing to send back one piece of mail, even though there is no reasonable basis to believe the individual actually moved. See ante, at 14 (Breyer, J., dissenting). This purge program burdens the rights of eligible voters. At best, purged voters are forced to “needlessly reregister” if they decide to vote in a subsequent election; at worst, they are prevented from voting at all because they never receive information about when and where  elections are taking place.

 It is unsurprising in light of the history of such purge programs that numerous amici report that the Supplemental Process has disproportionately affected minority, low-income, disabled, and veteran voters. As one example, amici point to an investigation that revealed that in Hamilton County, “African-American-majority neighborhoods in downtown Cincinnati had 10% of their voters removed due to inactivity” since 2012, as “compared to only 4% of voters in a suburban, majority-white neighborhood.” Brief for National Association for the Advancement of Colored People et al. as Amici Curiae 18–19. Amici also explain at length how low voter turnout rates, language-access problems, mail delivery issues, inflexible work schedules, and transportation issues, among other obstacles, make it more difficult for many minority, low-income, disabled, homeless, and veteran voters to cast a ballot or return a notice, rendering them particularly vulnerable to unwarranted removal under the Supplemental Process. See Brief for Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC et al. as Amici Curiae 15–26; Brief for National Disability Rights Network et al. as Amici Curiae 17, 21–24, 29–31; Brief for VoteVets Action Fund as Amicus Curiae 23–30. See also Brief for Libertarian National Committee as Amicus Curiae 19–22 (burdens on principled nonvoters).

 Neither the majority nor Ohio meaningfully dispute that the Supplemental Process disproportionately burdens these communities. At oral argument, Ohio suggested that such a disparate impact is not pertinent to this case because respondents did not challenge the Supplemental Process under §20507(b)(1), which requires that any removal program “be uniform, nondiscriminatory, and in compliance with the Voting Rights Act.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 23. The fact that respondents did not raise a claim under §20507(b)(1), however, is wholly irrelevant to our assessment of whether, as a matter of statutory interpretation,  the Supplemental Process removes voters “by reason of the person’s failure to vote” in violation of §20507(b)(2). Contrary to the majority’s view, ante, at 20–21, the NVRA’s express findings and purpose are highly relevant to that interpretive analysis because they represent “the assumed facts and the purposes that the majority of the enacting legislature . . . had in mind, and these can shed light on the meaning of the operative provisions that follow.” A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law 218 (2012). Respondents need not demonstrate discriminatory intent to establish that Ohio’s interpretation of the NVRA is contrary to the statutory text and purpose.

 In concluding that the Supplemental Process does not violate the NVRA, the majority does more than just misconstrue the statutory text. It entirely ignores the history of voter suppression against which the NVRA was enacted and upholds a program that appears to further the very disenfranchisement of minority and low-income voters that Congress set out to eradicate. States, though, need not choose to be so unwise. Our democracy rests on the ability of all individuals, regardless of race, income, or status, to exercise their right to vote. The majority of States have found ways to maintain accurate voter rolls without initiating removal processes based solely on an individual’s failure to vote. See App. to Brief for League of Women Voters of the United States et al. as Amici Curiae 1a–9a; Brief for State of New York et al. as Amici Curiae 22–28. Communities that are disproportionately affected by unnecessarily harsh registration laws should not tolerate efforts to marginalize their influence in the political process, nor should allies who recognize blatant unfairness stand idly by. Today’s decision forces these communities and their allies to be even more proactive and vigilant in holding their States accountable and working to dismantle the obstacles they face in exercising the fundamental right to vote.