There is a very good reason for states to maintain a list of voters. There is a very good reason for the state to update and maintain, as much as possible, an accurate and current list of voters. There is a very good reason to purge from the list the names of people who are not eligible to vote within the jurisdiction of a state, county, or city. The federal law requires states to remove people ineligible to vote within the state. "
The Act has two main objectives: increasing voter registra-tion and removing ineligible persons from the States’ voter registration rolls...To achieve the latter goal, the NVRA requires States to “conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names” of voters who are ineligible “by reason of” death or change in residence.. Husted v. Randolph Institute.
Voting is logically attached to residency. To vote for an 8th district House of Representative candidate in Indiana requires A.) One is a resident in Indiana and B.) One is a resident within the 8th district of Indiana. To cast a ballot for the presidency in the state of Pennsylvania requires one to be a resident of the state of Pennsylvania. To vote for a senate candidate in Louisiana requires one to be a resident of the state of Louisiana. Hence, voting is logically related to residency.
As a result, it makes perfect sense to remove people from the voter registration rolls of a state when A.) They are no longer a resident of the state. A resident of Ohio, who moves to California and his residence is now in California and he has no residence in Ohio, can no longer cast a ballot in Ohio. There's no rational point for him to remain on Ohio's list of voters. Hence, it makes perfect sense to remove him from Ohio's list of voters.
The same is true of the voter in my example. The former NY resident, so in love with winter and snow, who decides to move out of the state of New York and no longer have a residence in NY, but chooses to reside in Antarctica and call Antarctica their home, should not remain on NY's roll of voters. There's no reason to keep such a person on NY's roll of voters when they have moved out of the state and taken up residence in another state or country.
So, in pursuit of the objective to maintain an accurate list of voters who may cast a ballot in a particular state, the states, Ohio included, make an effort to confirm the person on their list is actually a resident within their state. The states implement different methods to achieve this goal. Ohio has chosen a particular method to confirm residency within the state in an effort to keep an update list of voters. The method chosen by Ohio is in compliance with the federal statute of A.) notice to the person, and B.) no response to the notice and C.) non-voting.
The Ohio method is not offensive or egregious as some have presented it. Neither is the federal law which required Ohio and all the states to take action to maintain and keep an updated list of voters.
From the opinion:
The Act also prescribes requirements that a State must meet in order to remove a name on change-of-residence grounds.
The most important of these requirements is a prior notice obligation...a State may not remove a registrant’s name on change-of-residence grounds unless either (A) the registrant confirms in writing that he or she has moved or (B) the registrant fails to return a preaddressed, postage prepaid “return card” containing statutorily prescribed content. This card must explain what a registrant who has not moved needs to do in order to stay on the rolls, i.e., either return the card or vote during the period covering the next two general federal elections. And for the benefit of those who have moved, the card must contain “information concerning how the registrant can continue to be eligible to vote.” If the State does not send such a card or otherwise get writ-ten notice that the person has moved, it may not remove the registrant on change-of-residence grounds...
no provision of federal law specifies the circumstances under which a return card may be sent. Accordingly, States take a variety of ap-proaches. The NVRA itself sets out one option. A State may send these cards to those who have submitted “change-of-address information” to the United States Postal Service. Thirty-six States do at least that. Other States send notices to every registered voter at specified intervals (say, once a year). Still other States, including Ohio, take an intermediate approach, such as sending notices to those who have turned in their driver’s licenses or sending notices to those who have not voted for some period of time. When a State receives a return card confirming that a registrant has left the district, the State must remove the voter’s name from the rolls. And if the State receives a card stating that the registrant has not moved, the registrant’s name must be kept on the list.
What if no return card is mailed back? Congress obvi-ously anticipated that some voters who received cards would fail to return them for any number of reasons, and it addressed this contingency in §20507(d), which, for convenience, we will simply call “subsection (d).” Subsec-tion (d) treats the failure to return a card as some evi-dence—but by no means conclusive proof—that the voter has moved. Instead, the voter’s name is kept on the list for a period covering two general elections for federal office (usually about four years). Only if the registrant fails to vote during that period and does not otherwise confirm that he or she still lives in the district (e.g., by updating address information online) may the registrant’s name be removed.
Since 1994, Ohio has used two procedures to identify and remove voters who have lost their residency qualification.
First, the State utilizes the Postal Service option set out in the NVRA. The State sends notices to registrants whom the Postal Service’s “national change of address service” identifies as having moved...Ohio does not rely on this information alone. In its so-called Supplemental Process, Ohio “identif[ies] electors whose lack of voter activity indicates they may have moved.” Ohio sends notices to registrants who have “not engage[d] in any voter activity for a period of two consecu-tive years.” Id., at 1509. “Voter activity” includes “casting a ballot” in any election—whether general, primary, or special and whether federal, state, or local...the term “voter activity” is broader than simply voting. It also includes such things as “sign[ing] a petition,” “filing a voter registration form, and updating a voting address with a variety of [state] entities.”
After sending these notices, Ohio removes registrants from the rolls only if they “fai[l] to respond” and “con-tinu[e] to be inactive for an additional period of four con-secutive years, including two federal general elections.” Thus, a person remains on the rolls if he or she votes in any elec-tion during that period—which in Ohio typically means voting in any of the at least four elections after notice. Combined with the two years of nonvoting before notice is sent, that makes a total of six years of nonvoting before removal.
The method described above in both the federal and Ohio law is sensible, reasonable, and not offensive, egregious, as some contend. The law pursues a rational and important objective and the method to achieve the objective is logically related to attain said objective.
