[6][5] In 2016, an estimated 144,000 people were removed from Ohio's voter registration list in the three largest counties in the state, containing the cities Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati.

Desiring to vote on an issue in 2015, Harmon found that his name had been struck from the voter lists, following Ohio's process, but he claims he never received the postal notice.

[9][10] The Court was scheduled to hear oral arguments November 8, 2017,[11] however the Court temporarily removed the case from its argument calendar due to one of the parties' attorneys being ill.[12] The case was argued on January 10, 2018 by attorney Paul M. Smith, Ohio Solicitor General Eric E. Murphy, and Solicitor General of the United States Noel Francisco.

§ 20507(d), a registration is subject to removal from the official list of eligible voters on grounds of a change of residence if:[17][18] With respect to the aforementioned described section the United States Supreme Court stated in Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Inst., 138 S. Ct. 1833 (2018) that Section 8(d) "provides that a State may remove a registrant who "(i) has failed to respond to a notice" and "(ii) has not voted or appeared to vote ... during the period beginning on the date of the notice and ending on the day after the date of the second general election for Federal office that occurs after the date of the notice" (about four years).

Breyer wrote that this process presumes action on the absence of a response, since only few of those that are mailed voter cards reply back to them.

[21][4][5] The decision, issued in June, allows Ohio to continue pruning its voter list prior to the 2018 election cycle, as well as supporting similar approaches used in six other states.

[26] Journalist Vann R. Newkirk II asserted in July 2018 that the Roberts Court with its Shelby County v. Holder decision along with the 2018 Supreme Court decisions in Husted v. Randolph Institute[4][5] and Abbott v. Perez[27] has "set the stage for a new era of white hegemony", because these cases "furthered Roberts's mandate to distance the federal judiciary from Thurgood Marshall's vision of those bodies as active watchdogs for the Fourteenth and arbiters for America's racial injustices.

Furthermore, with Alito's gerrymandering decision, the Court holds that past discrimination by states—even at its boldest and most naked—is not really a consideration in assessments of current policies.