(Rightallegiance.com) – In a significant development just days before the 2024 general election, the Supreme Court has given the green light for Virginia to move ahead with its program to remove approximately 1,600 individuals alleged to be noncitizens from its voter rolls. This decision, announced on Wednesday, has sparked reactions across the political spectrum, and further intensifies the conversation around voter eligibility and electoral integrity in the United States.
The Supreme Court’s order came in response to an appeal from Virginia state officials, allowing them to put a hold on a lower court’s injunction that had blocked their voter removal initiative. This program, which began in August, sought to verify the citizenship status of voters and remove those who could not provide documentation. Notably, the initiative began exactly 90 days before Election Day—a timing that drew the attention of the Justice Department, which argued it violated the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). The NVRA mandates that states complete any large-scale voter purge at least 90 days before a federal election to avoid errors that might disenfranchise eligible voters.
The court’s decision was not unanimous, with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting. Their concern stemmed from the timing of Virginia’s actions and its potential impact on eligible voters. The Justice Department, in a statement, expressed disappointment, stating that their goal in challenging Virginia was to ensure that every eligible American could participate in elections without undue barriers. “We disagree with the Supreme Court’s order,” a spokesperson said, underscoring the department’s stance on safeguarding voter rights.
Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin, a Republican, welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision. He described it as a “victory for commonsense and election fairness,” emphasizing the importance of maintaining clean voter rolls. “Clean voter rolls are one important part of a comprehensive approach we are taking to ensure the fairness of our elections,” Youngkin said. He outlined various safeguards already in place to ensure election security, including paper ballots, secure counting machines, and signature verification processes. “Virginians can cast their ballots on Election Day knowing that Virginia’s elections are fair, secure, and free from politically-motivated interference,” he added.
State officials had argued that the lower court’s order, which had effectively halted the voter removal process, would create confusion and potentially compromise the state’s ability to conduct a smooth election. They contended that the injunction would overload election officials, create uncertainty for voters, and risk leading noncitizens to believe they were allowed to vote—a criminal act under both federal and Virginia law.
Virginia’s voter removal program came under scrutiny as part of a Justice Department lawsuit filed earlier in October, challenging an executive order issued by Governor Youngkin. The order formalized a longstanding state program that checks citizenship status using data from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), with updates now being processed daily instead of monthly. According to state officials, the program had been in place for years, and the recent changes simply enhanced its frequency, aiming to make the process more efficient.
The Justice Department, however, argued that the timing of the program’s implementation was problematic, as it violated the NVRA’s so-called Quiet Period Provision, which restricts states from initiating voter purges within 90 days of an election. This provision, federal officials argued, is designed to minimize the risk that eligible voters could be mistakenly removed from the rolls, ensuring they have enough time to correct any issues before Election Day. In response to the program, U.S. District Judge Patricia Giles issued a preliminary injunction, ordering Virginia to restore the voter registrations of roughly 1,600 people who had been removed. Judge Giles found that the state’s actions likely breached federal law by purging voters during the restricted period.
The case quickly made its way to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, where a panel of three judges upheld the lower court’s order. They highlighted the ambiguity surrounding the citizenship status of the purged voters, noting that state officials had not provided sufficient proof that those removed were, in fact, noncitizens. The panel reiterated that some of the voters whose registrations had been canceled might still be eligible to participate in the upcoming election.
Virginia officials, in their appeal to the Supreme Court, argued that the Quiet Period Provision should not apply to the removal of noncitizens from voter rolls, as they are categorically ineligible to vote. The state also noted that those flagged as noncitizens were given 14 days to verify their citizenship before their registration was officially canceled, a measure aimed at preventing mistakes.
In its Supreme Court filing, the Justice Department contended that while states are allowed to remove ineligible voters, including noncitizens, the method and timing of Virginia’s program fell under the restrictions of the NVRA’s Quiet Period. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that without appropriate safeguards, the program could result in eligible citizens facing unjustified barriers to voting. “[W]ithout injunctive relief to remedy [Virginia’s] violation of the Quiet Period Provision, eligible citizens will suffer unjustified burdens on their right to vote — potentially including disenfranchisement,” she wrote.
The controversy in Virginia echoes similar legal battles in other states, including Alabama, where the Justice Department has also challenged the removal of alleged noncitizens from voter rolls. In Alabama, a federal judge recently blocked the state from continuing with its voter purge program, noting that over 2,000 eligible voters had been incorrectly labeled as ineligible.
The broader implications of the Supreme Court’s decision are significant, particularly given the heightened scrutiny of voter integrity issues in the United States. Critics argue that while maintaining accurate voter rolls is crucial, aggressive purges conducted close to election dates can result in eligible voters being wrongfully disenfranchised, especially when such programs rely on automated data matching, which may contain errors. Proponents, on the other hand, emphasize the importance of preventing voter fraud and ensuring that only eligible individuals participate in elections.
As Election Day approaches, Virginia’s actions, and the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the purge to proceed, will likely continue to be a focal point of debate, shaping discussions around voter rights, election security, and the balance between preventing fraud and ensuring broad voter access.