Decreasing the number of ineligible ones, and this congressional compromise is evident in the statutes conflicting mandates. Evident in the mandates. It requires states to undertake programs to remove ineligible individuals but place limits on those federally mandated removal programs, including the states not removing individuals who changed residence unless they failed to respond to change notice. I know you have the exceptions clause. Would your case have been stronger without the enactment of section be . In other words, can you rely just on a and d. . If there were no b at all. Certainly, if there was no clause, thats one of the main prohibitions on which they are lying. But you have to interpret in light of the, d clearly indicates, so long as we send notice and so long as we went to federal elections, that is acceptable. So why bother . Because of the except clause. Because you have to interpret the provision in a way that reconciles with the use of failure to vote and only our
Not removing individuals who changed residence unless they failed to respond to change notice. I know you have the exceptions clause. Would your case have been stronger without the enactment of section be . In other words, can you rely just on a and d. . If there were no b at all. Certainly, if there was no clause, thats one of the main prohibitions on which they are lying. But you have to interpret in light of the, d clearly indicates, so long as we send notice and so long as we went to federal elections, that is acceptable. So why bother . Because of the except clause. Because you have to interpret the provision in a way that reconciles with the use of failure to vote and only our position interprets b in a way that allows the back and use of nonvoting and d. The act itself is a safe harbor position. That triggers confirmation. That Safe Harbor Provision doesnt rely on at all on failure to vote. It relies on post office change of address form. So isnt that some clue that safe harbor
16980 husted versus the a. Randolph institute. Mr. Murphy . Mr. Chief justice and may it please the court. Congress passed evra to serve competing goals increasing number of registered voters and decreasing the number of ineligible ones and this congressional compromise is evident in the statutes conflicting mandates. It both requires states to undertake general programs to remove ineligible individuals, but at the same time places limits on those federally mandated removal programs including that states may not remove individuals from changed residents unless they fail to respond to a notice or to move federal elections. I know you have the exceptions clause in b2. Would your case have been stronger without the enactment of section b . Without the in other words, can you rely just on a and d . If there was no if there were no b at all. Certainly, i think if there was no failure to vote clause that was one of the main prohibitions andio you have to interpret b in light of d, of course
Is to blame for using toxic gas on syrian civilians. , a special report from thailand on Human Trafficking and slavery in the fishing industry. Our correspondent top two men who escaped. And coming up, the World Economic forum underway in the swiss alps, our Business Editor will be live from davos. Many mouse gets a star on the hollywood walk of fame after mickey mouse. First, our top story live from paris. We start in washington where the threeday Government Shutdown has come to an end. On monday, Congress Approved a shortterm funding bill with the next about on a very eight. Igrants agreed after democrats agreed after republicans promised to bring Immigration Reform to the floor , many coming weeks activist angry the democrats caved without achieving anything from three days of political hostagetaking. We have more. Angry,ppointed and protesters take to the street after policy politicians ended the Government Shutdown without a concrete deal. I have lived my life in this country and
But at the same time places limits on those federally mandated removal programs, including that states may not remove individuals for changed residents unless they fail to respond to a notice and to vote in over two federal elections. I know you have the exceptions clause in b2, would your case have been stronger without the enactment of section b . Without the in other words, could you rely just on a and d . If there was no if there were no b at all . I think certainly i think that if there was no failure to vote clause thats one of the main prohibitions on which theyre relying, i think you have to interpret b in light of d, of course. D clearly indicates that we if so long as we send individuals a notice and so long as we wait two federal elections before we remove them that is acceptable. So why bother because of the except clause . Because you have to interpret the provision b2 the failure to vote clause in the way that uses the failure to vote and only our position interprets b in