Richard Wolf for USA Today:
More signs of his emerging role came in May, when Gorsuch sided with Justice Clarence Thomas in urging the court to consider whether to lift a ban on unlimited federal election spending by political parties. The court refused to hear the case, but Gorsuch went out of his way to note his disapproval.
“It shows he’s not shy to be out there,” said Rick Hasen, a University of California-Irvine law professor who maintains a blog on election law. “I feel like he’s hit the blocks running, and I don’t think he’s likely to exhibit the kind of caution that we’ve seen from some justices.”
Later that month, the court agreed to hear Ohio’s challenge to a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the aggressive way it purges voters from registration rolls. Voting rights groups decried the move, while those more concerned about voter fraud cheered it.
It’s impossible to know if Gorsuch was among at least four justices needed to approve hearing the case next term. But the move could signify that some of the court’s more conservative justices believe Ohio and other states have a right to purge voters for not voting in several successive elections.