Eric Clay

Eric Clay

Nonpartisan

United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit

Tenure

1997 - Present

Years in position

28

Education

Bachelor's

University of North Carolina, 1969

Law

Yale Law School, 1972

Personal

Birthplace

Durham, N.C.

Eric L. Clay is a federal judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. He joined the court in 1997 after being nominated by President Bill Clinton.

Early life and education

A native of Durham, North Carolina, Clay graduated from the University of North Carolina with his bachelor's degree in 1969 and from Yale Law School with his J.D. in 1972.

Professional career

• 1997 - Present: Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit
• 1973-1997: Private practice, Detroit, Mich.
• 1972-1973: Law clerk, Hon. Damon Keith, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan

Judicial career

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals

Nomination Tracker
Nominee Information
Name: Eric L. Clay
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit
Progress
Confirmed 512 days after nomination.
ANominated: March 6, 1996
AABA Rating: Unanimously Well Qualified
Questionnaire:
AHearing: May 7, 1997
QFRs: (Hover over QFRs to read more)
AReported: May 22, 1997 April 25, 1996
AConfirmed: July 31, 1997
AVote: Voice vote
AReturned: October 4, 1996

Clay was first nominated to the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit by President Bill Clinton on March 6, 1996, to a seat vacated by Judge Ralph Guy. The American Bar Association rated Clay Unanimously Well Qualified for the nomination. Hearings on Clay's nomination were held before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary on March 27, 1996, and his nomination was reported by U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) on April 25, 1996. Under provisions of Rule XXXI, paragraph six of the standing rules of the Senate, Clay's nomination was returned to the president on October 4, 1996. President Clinton resubmitted Clay's nomination on January 7, 1997. Hearings on Clay's nomination were held before the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 7, 1997, and his nomination was reported by Sen. Hatch on May 22, 1997. Clay was confirmed on a voice vote of the U.S. Senate on July 31, 1997, and he received his commission the next day.

Noteworthy cases

Sixth Circuit rules Ohio's process for deregistering voters violates federal law

See also: United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit (A. Philip Randolph Institute, Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless, and Larry Harmon v. Jon Husted, No. 16-3746)

On September 23, 2016, a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit ruled that a process for deregistering voters used by the state of Ohio violated the National Voter Registration Act.

Ohio's Supplemental Process was used by the state to identify and deregister voters from its voter rolls who were no longer eligible to vote due to a change of residence. Under this process, the board of elections in each Ohio county complied a list of registered voters that had not had any defined voter activity for a period of two years. Voter activity included filing a change of address with a state agency, filing a voter registration card, voting in person on Election Day, voting provisionally, or voting absentee. Such inactivity automatically triggered the county board of elections to send a confirmation of address notice to all of those listed as inactive for two years. Voters were sent a confirmation notice and were removed from the voter rolls if they failed to vote within the subsequent four-year period and if they failed to either re-register to vote or respond to the notice from the county board of elections. A federal district court upheld Ohio's process, but the Sixth Circuit reversed, finding that Ohio's provision for removing otherwise eligible voters from its voter rolls solely for a failure to vote violated a provision of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).

Writing for the panel, Judge Eric Clay said,

“

The only reasonable reading of the NVRA is that any part of a state’s roll maintenance process that does not mimic the expressly permitted procedures outlined in subsections (c) or (d)—in this case, the Supplemental Process’ two-year 'trigger' provision—is subject to subsection (b)(2)’s prohibition clause. ... In this case, the Supplemental Process’ trigger provision explicitly uses a person’s failure to engage in any 'voter activity'—which includes voting—for two years as the 'trigger' for sending a confirmation notice. Under the ordinary meaning of 'result,' the Supplemental Process would violate the prohibition clause because removal of a voter 'proceed[s] or arise[s] as a consequence' of his or her failure to vote. ... Regardless of whether 'trigger' provisions are required, and regardless of what forms such 'triggers' can or cannot take, it is clear that the Supplemental Process does include a trigger, and that that trigger constitutes perhaps the plainest possible example of a process that 'result[s] in' removal of a voter from the rolls by reason of his or her failure to vote. 52 U.S.C. § 20507(d)(2). We therefore hold that Ohio’s Supplemental Process violates Section 8, subsection (b)(2) of the NVRA.

”

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in this case during its October 2017 term.

For more, see Husted v. Randolph Institute

See also

• United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit

External links

• Judge Clay's biography from the Federal Judicial Center

Footnotes

Political offices
Preceded by -	United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit 1997-Present	Succeeded by -