Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowA federal appeals court has confirmed that Indiana’s attempt to cleanse its voter rolls by using the controversial Crosscheck database violates the National Voter Registration Act. The ruling upholds a lower court ruling in a suit brought by a national public-interest group.
In its ruling issued Tuesday in Common Cause Indiana et al. v. Connie Lawson, et al., 18-2491 and 18-2492, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the preliminary injunction preventing Indiana from implementing Senate Enrolled Act 442 passed in 2017. The law would have allowed Indiana to remove voters from the from the rolls without even trying to provide notification to the voters.
Indiana has been using the Crosscheck system, which pulls voter data from multiple states to identify potential duplicate registrations. However, the 2017 law would have allowed the Hoosier state to kick voters from the rolls if they were registered in another state. The law did not require the state contact the voters directly to confirm they wanted to cancel their registrations.
The 7th Circuit panel noted the NVRA sets boundaries within which states must operate their voter-registration processes. For states to remove a name from the voter rolls, the registrant must either inform the state about his or her change in residence or not respond to a notice inquiring about continued eligibility. Moreover, even when the registrant fails to respond, the state still cannot remove the voter’s name until that individual has not voted or appeared to vote during the period after the notice was sent.
“Not only does Indiana’s reading ignore the common-sense interpretation of the phrase “the registrant confirms,” but also, by allowing an initial piece of information suggesting a change in residency to perform double-duty as confirmation of the change, the state would render the confirmation requirement and the alternative notice provisions ‘insignificant, if not wholly superfluous,’” Chief Judge Diane Wood wrote, citing Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 174 (2001).
Judge Michael Brennan wrote a concurring opinion.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.