WASHINGTON – Failing to vote can lead to getting knocked off voter registration rolls, a deeply divided Supreme Court ruled Monday in a decision that probably will help Republicans and hurt Democrats. The court's conservative majority ruled 5-4 that Ohio did not violate federal laws by purging voters who failed to vote for six years and did not confirm their residency. Ohio has the strictest such law in the nation. The ruling protects similar laws in six states, including several electing governors or U.S. senators this fall. They are Pennsylvania, Georgia, Oregon, Oklahoma, West Virginia and Montana. Civil rights groups challenged Ohio's procedure for cleaning up voter registration rolls, arguing that it disproportionately affects minorities, the poor and people with disabilities. The Trump administration reversed the position taken by its predecessor and sided with Ohio. Justice Samuel Alito noted in his majority opinion that about one in eight voter registrations in the USA are invalid or inaccurate. He said failing to vote cannot be the sole reason for purging voters, but Ohio "removes registrants only if they have failed to vote and have failed to respond to a notice." "A state violates the failure-to-vote clause only if it removes registrants for no reason other than their failure to vote," Alito said. By contrast, he said, Ohio waits six years before removal, following federal law "to the letter." Justice Stephen Breyer penned an 18-page dissent for the liberal wing of the court, marking the sixth time this term the four liberals have dissented as a bloc. Rather than focusing on messy voter rolls, he recited the history of literacy tests, poll taxes and other restrictions he said were designed to "keep certain groups of citizens from voting." Breyer noted that most voters simply ignore the warning notices, leaving their failure to vote as the principal cause for being purged from the rolls. The number who don't vote or return notices far exceeds the number who actually have moved, he said. "The streets of Ohio's cities are not filled with moving vans; nor has Cleveland become the nation's residential moving companies' headquarters," Breyer said. Rather, Ohio's process "erects needless hurdles to voting of the kind Congress sought to eliminate." Advantage: GOP The ruling could be a major victory for Republicans, who tend to benefit from lower voter turnout, and a stinging loss for Democrats, who do best in high-turnout elections. That's because minorities, young people and those with lower incomes are most likely to be disenfranchised by the state's policy. “Make no mistake: This case was about nothing more than Ohio Republicans trying to tilt elections in their favor by blocking communities of color from the ballot box — all under the guise of preventing ‘voter fraud,’ " Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez said. Justice Sonia Sotomayor made that point in a separate dissent, noting Ohio statistics show that the state's process disproportionately affects minority, low-income, disabled and veteran voters. "This purge program burdens the rights of eligible voters," she said. "At best, purged voters are forced to needlessly re-register 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." Paul Smith, a veteran Supreme Court litigator who presented the challengers' case in January, said the court's ruling will hurt infrequent voters "who have a certain political perspective.” Myrna Pérez, director of voting rights and elections at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, warned that other states "will take this decision as a green light to implement more aggressive voter purges as the 2018 elections loom." Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted hailed the ruling as "a victory for election integrity and a defeat for those who use the federal court system to make election law across the country." He said the state's method of purging voters "can serve as a model for other states to use." And Tom Fitton, president of the conservative group Judicial Watch, said the decision "should send a signal to other states to take reasonable steps to make sure that voters who died or moved away no longer remain on their voter rolls." Bellwether state Ohio, often a bellwether in national elections, has removed thousands of people who didn't vote for two years, didn't return warning notices, then didn't vote for an additional four years. The state was sued after the 2015 election, when those who had not voted since Barack Obama was elected president in 2008 discovered they no longer were registered. Under federal laws enacted in 1993 and 2002, states cannot remove voters from registration lists because of their failure to vote. They can do so if voters don't respond to confirmation notices. The question for the court was whether failing to vote could be the initial trigger leading to removal. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in 2016 said no, which restored the votes of 7,515 Ohioans. The case was the latest in a series of battles against attempts by some states to restrict voting rights and combat alleged voter fraud. Most of the states that backed Ohio have Republican governors or legislatures; most of those opposed are governed by Democrats. The Supreme Court has heard a bevy of voting rights cases since its controversial decision in 2013 striking down a key section of the Voting Rights Act, which had forced mostly Southern states to clear changes in election laws with federal officials. Last term, the justices nixed the excessive use of race in redistricting by legislatures in North Carolina and Virginia; a similar case from Texas is pending. This term, it faces cases from Wisconsin and Maryland challenging what opponents claim were election maps drawn by state legislators for purely partisan gain. Ohio's law was criticized as harsh because it kick-started the purging process after two years. During oral argument in January, Smith said, "Most of the people who are purged have not moved." U.S.<doc-sep>WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who had refused to create a wedding cake for a gay couple. The court’s decision was narrow, and it left open the larger question of whether a business can discriminate against gay men and lesbians based on rights protected by the First Amendment. The court passed on an opportunity to either bolster the right to same-sex marriage or explain how far the government can go in regulating businesses run on religious principles. Instead, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s majority opinion turned on the argument that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which originally ruled against the baker, had been shown to be hostile to religion because of the remarks of one of its members. At the same time, Justice Kennedy strongly reaffirmed protections for gay rights. “The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts,” he wrote, “all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.” Justice Kennedy often casts the deciding vote in closely divided cases on major social issues. When the court agreed to hear the Colorado case last June, it seemed to present him with a stark choice between two of his core commitments. On the one hand, Justice Kennedy has written every major Supreme Court decision protecting gay men and lesbians. On the other, he is the court’s most ardent defender of free speech.<doc-sep>WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court gave a boost to advocates of religious freedom on Monday, ruling that a Colorado baker cannot be forced to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, in a case that involved marriage equality and protection from discrimination. But the opinion was a narrow one, applying to the specific facts of this case only. It gave no hint as to how the court might decide future cases involving florists, bakers, photographers and other business owners who have cited religious and free-speech objections when refusing to serve gay and lesbian customers in the wake of the Supreme Court's 2015 same-sex marriage decision. In the 7-2 decision, the court said legal proceedings in Colorado had shown a hostility to the baker's religious views. Monday's ruling was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who also wrote the Supreme Court's same-sex marriage decision. Similar cases are now working their way through the lower courts. "These disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy wrote. But the ruling, which came during Pride Month, gave little guidance to the lower courts about how to balance those competing interests. The decision was a victory for Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cake in Denver, who has said that his cakes are works of art and that requiring him to bake them for same-sex weddings would force him to express a view that violated his religious beliefs. He runs his business guided by religious principles, closing on Sunday and refusing to make cakes containing alcohol or celebrating Halloween. In 2012, when David Mullins and Charlie Craig walked into his shop and asked him to bake a cake for a reception to celebrate their wedding, Phillips said, "I'm sorry, guys, I can't do that." What followed, Mullins said, "was this horrible pregnant pause while what was happening sunk in, and we were mortified." David Mullins and Charlie Craig outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 5, 2017, in Washington. Craig and Mullins filed a complaint after conservative Christian baker Jack Phillips refused to make them a wedding cake for their same-sex ceremony. Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images After the couple filed a formal complaint, Colorado courts ruled that the state's public accommodation law, which bans discrimination by companies offering their services to the public, did not allow Phillips to refuse the gay couple's request. A reasonable person would assume that the cake expressed the message of the couple, not the baker, the courts said. In a statement obtained by the Associated Press, Phillips' Supreme Court lawyer praised Monday's outcome. “Government hostility toward people of faith has no place in our society, yet the state of Colorado was openly antagonistic toward Jack’s religious beliefs about marriage. The court was right to condemn that,” said Kristen Waggoner, senior counsel with the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian nonprofit. The ACLU, representing Mullins and Craig, said they never discussed with Phillips what kind of design, if any, they wanted on their cake, diminishing his claim that his freedom of expression was at stake. "He simply turned us away just because of who we are instead of what we asked for," Craig said. The ACLU said in a statement Monday, "The Supreme Court today reaffirmed the core principle that businesses open to the public must be open to all. ... The court did not accept arguments that would have turned back the clock on equality by making our basic civil rights protections unenforceable, but reversed this case based on concerns specific to the facts here." Liberal justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented Monday, while Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan joined with the conservatives — Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, and Chief Justice John Roberts — in the outcome. After Colorado's Civil Rights Commission said that Phillips could not discriminate by refusing to make cakes for same-sex weddings, he chose to stop baking wedding cakes for all customers, which he said cost him about 40 percent of his business. He had said a Supreme Court ruling in his favor would "declare to the world that my faith is not a scarlet letter."<doc-sep>WASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 26: The exterior of the U.S. Supreme Court on March 26, 2012 in Washington, DC. Today the high court, which has set aside six hours over three days, will hear arguments over the constitutionality President Barack Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images) A general view of the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, June 18, 2015. AFP PHOTO/JIM WATSON (Photo credit should read JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images)Supreme Court building exterior The U.S. Supreme Court is shown March 29, 2016 in Washington, DC following the first 4-4 tie in a case before the court. The Justices of the US Supreme Court sit for their official photograph on October 8, 2010 at the Supreme Court in Washington, DC. Front row (L-R): Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Back Row (L-R): Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr. and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. AFP PHOTO / TIM SLOAN (Photo credit should read TIM SLOAN/AFP/Getty Images) WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 25: A gay marriage waves a flag in front of the Supreme Court Building June 25, 2015 in Washington, DC. The high court is expected rule in the next few days on whether states can prohibit same sex marriage, as 13 states currently do. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images) The U.S. Supreme Court is shown as the court meets to issue decisions May 23, 2016 in Washington, D.C. Pro-choice activist, Alissa Manzoeillo, of Washington, D.C. waits for rulings in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on June 27, 2016 in Washington, DC. A ruling is expected in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, a Texas case the places restrictions on abortion clinics, as well as rulings in the former Virginia Governor's corruption case and a gun rights case. WASHINGTON - JUNE 25: The exterior view of the U.S. Supreme Court is seen June 25, 2007 in Washington, DC. The Supreme Court has ruled to give more freedom for interest groups and unions to run TV ads before elections, and also ruled to limit taxpayers' rights to challenge government initiatives as unconstitutionally promoting religion. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images) People wait in line to enter the U.S. Supreme Court, on April 23, 2018 in Washington, DC. A wedding cake with statuettes of two men is seen during the demonstration in West Hollywood, California, May 15, 2008, after the decision by the California Supreme Court to effectively greenlight same-sex marriage. AFP PHOTO / GABRIEL BOUYS (Photo credit should read GABRIEL BOUYS/AFP/Getty Images) WASHINGTON - FEBRUARY 05: The U.S. Supreme Court is shown February 5, 2009 in Washington, DC. It was announced today that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had surgery after being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images) Conservative Christian baker Jack Phillips waves to supporters outside the Supreme Court building December 5, 2017 in Washington, DC. Craig and Mullins filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission after conservative Christian baker Jack Phillips refused to sell them a wedding cake for their same-sex ceremony..Photo by Olivier Douliery/Abaca Press (Newscom TagID: sipaphotosseven621897.jpg) [Photo via Newscom] (CNN) — The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake to celebrate the marriage of a same sex couple because of a religious objection. The ruling was 7-2. The court held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed hostility toward the baker based on his religious beliefs. The ruling is a win for baker Jack Phillips, who cited his beliefs as a Christian, but leaves unsettled broader constitutional questions on religious liberty. “Today’s decision is remarkably narrow, and leaves for another day virtually all of the major constitutional questions that this case presented,” said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law. “It’s hard to see the decision setting a precedent.” The ruling, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, held that members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed animus toward Phillips specifically when they suggested his claims of religious freedom were made to justify discrimination. The case was one of the most anticipated rulings of the term and was considered by some as a follow-up from the court’s decision three years ago to clear the way for same-sex marriage nationwide. That opinion, also written by Kennedy, expressed respect for those with religious objections to gay marriage. “Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth,” he wrote Monday. Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner, who represented Phillips, praised the ruling. “Jack serves all customers; he simply declines to express messages or celebrate events that violate his deeply held beliefs,” Waggoner said in a statement. “Creative professionals who serve all people should be free to create art consistent with their convictions without the threat of government punishment.” She further added that the case “will affect a number of cases for years to come in free exercise jurisprudence. That’s how the court’s decisions work.” Waggoner said Phillips is “relieved” at the court’s decision and that he will be working with the Alliance Defending Freedom to determine when to move forward to continue making wedding cakes. “It’s been a long, six-year battle where his family business, his income, has been hanging in the balance. He’s also, obviously, handling a large volume of calls himself and looking out for the protection of his family, to be candid,” Waggoner said. Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, emphasized the narrowness of the opinion. “The court reversed the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision based on concerns unique to the case but reaffirmed its longstanding rule that states can prevent the harms of discrimination in the marketplace, including against LGBT people,” Melling said in a statement. Because Justice Clarence Thomas concurred in part, the judgment of the court on the case was 7-2 but the opinion on the rationale was 6-2. Religious tolerance<doc-sep>
Colorado Baker Jack Phillips had refused to serve a gay couple when they walked into his shop in 2012. The US Supreme Court delivered a historic but limited victory Monday to a Colorado baker who refused to design a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, in a closely-watched case pitting gay rights against religious liberty.In a 7-2 decision, the high court ruled that while the Colorado Civil Rights Commission determined that Masterpiece Cakeshop must serve clients regardless of sexual orientation, the panel showed "clear and impermissible hostility" toward the baker's religious beliefs.The commission's bias therefore violated baker Jack Phillips's rights under the US Constitution's First Amendment, the justices found.But they did not definitively rule on the issue of whether a business can decline to serve gays and lesbians based on religious views, meaning the broader contentious issue is likely to simmer.The Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in 2015, and Colorado law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.Phillips had argued that he refused to serve the couple, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, when they walked into his shop in 2012 because he opposed their planned marriage on religious grounds.The Colorado commission's "hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment's guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in an 18-page majority opinion. "The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market. "He noted that the panel's "official expressions of hostility to religion" was "inconsistent" with its strict requirement for neutrality.Two liberal justices, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, joined the conservatives in the majority ruling on the most significant case for gay rights since the high court approved same-sex marriage.Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented, arguing that the commission's alleged hostility played only a minor role. "What matters is that Phillips would not provide a good or service to a same-sex couple that he would provide to a heterosexual couple," Ginsburg wrote.US Attorney General Jeff Sessions said he was pleased with the decision. "In this case and others, the Department of Justice will continue to vigorously defend the free speech and religious freedom First Amendment rights of all Americans," Sessions said in a statement.Last year, President Donald Trump's administration weighed in on the side of Phillips, as the Justice Department filed a brief arguing that his First Amendment right of free expression had been violated.Mat Staver, chairman of the conservative Liberty Counsel, called the decision a "huge victory for the religious rights" of private citizens. "A person should be free to refuse to be used as a mouthpiece for an objectionable message," he said.In December, Phillips's lawyers argued before the court that while the baker was perfectly willing to sell ready-made products to anyone, a wedding cake can be considered artistic expression, and such creations can express a message -- something Phillips was not prepared to do for a gay couple.The cake case became a flashpoint in American political circles in recent years, with Republican lawmakers eager to plant the flag of religious freedom in backing the baker. "Today, the Supreme Court took a stand for religious liberty against the unconstitutional demands of an oppressive bureaucracy," Senator Ted Cruz said in a statement.The American Civil Liberties Union, which argued the case on behalf of Mullins and Craig, said the ruling represented a victory for the core principle upholding fair business practices for all. "The court reversed the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision based on concerns unique to the case, but reaffirmed its longstanding rule that states can prevent the harms of discrimination in the marketplace, including against LGBT people," said ACLU deputy legal director Louise Melling.The Supreme Court's punt on the broader issue of whether a business can invoke religious objections in order to refuse service assures that the subject will remain a major American debate. Mullins and Craig said in a statement that their fight against discrimination would continue. "We brought this case because no one should have to face the shame, embarrassment and humiliation of being told 'we don't serve your kind here' that we faced, and we will continue fighting until no one does," they said.