Today, for the first time, a federal court told a state that its planned use of the controversial Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck System (“Crosscheck”) to purge registered voters likely violates federal law.

Missouri is not updating voter registration information as required by law. We're seeking to change that.

We're seeking to ensure that no citizen has a voter registration improperly canceled as a result of a lawsuit initiated with misleading statistics.

While no law prevents outside donors, for example, from investing in the campaign of a low-income person, the likelihood that they’ll do so is low. The problem is social capital: Low-income people lack it, and so their personal networks do not often contain millionaires with open pocketbooks.

But progressive groups say that the Ohio law goes too far. They argue the state’s methods kick off eligible voters while leaving ineligible people on the rolls, and that Ohio doesn’t make it clear that people will lose their chance to vote if they don’t respond to the state’s mailer. “Their real

“The closer we get to the elections, the more difficult it will be to remedy any maps that are held unconstitutional in time for the election,” Stuart Naifeh, of the Demos think tank in New York, told Bloomberg Law. Demos is involved in its own high court voting challenge over voter purges by

The event supported what some experts are saying: that the sanctuary movement is growing nationally. “It’s a very profound and active form of resistance that has really been sweeping the country,” said Katherine Culliton-Gonzalez, senior counsel at Demos, a national nonpartisan, nonprofit group

On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard our Ohio voter purge case, Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute. At issue in the case is Ohio’s Supplemental Process, an unjust practice of removing infrequent voters from its registration rolls.

Six other states — Georgia, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania and West Virginia — have similar practices that target voters for removal from the rolls for not voting, but Ohio’s is the most extreme. “The National Voting Rights Act sought to eliminate practices such as Ohio’s that penalize

“They want the ability to use non-voting to remove people,” Demos senior counsel Stuart Naifeh, who is representing the Ohio challengers, told TPM. “And in these cases that they’ve brought or threatened to bring, they want counties or states to adopt that as a practice.”