Supreme Court Virginia voter purge/ Virginia voter roll purge/ Virginia Supreme Court ruling/ Youngkin voter purge/ Virginia election law/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ The Supreme Court has allowed Virginia to continue its purge of voter registrations, a process Governor Glenn Youngkin’s administration says targets non-U.S. citizens on the voter rolls. The decision follows a federal judge’s order to halt the purge due to potential impacts on legal voters, with three justices dissenting in the Supreme Court’s emergency ruling.
Supreme Court Ruling on Virginia Voter Rolls: Quick Looks
- Ruling details: The Supreme Court permitted Virginia to continue purging voter rolls, aiming to remove non-citizens.
- Dissenting justices: The court’s three liberal justices dissented in the decision.
- Governor Youngkin’s order: The August order aligns DMV data with voter rolls to identify ineligible voters.
- Legal opposition: A lawsuit argues that the purge violates federal law, risking legitimate voters’ registration status.
- Precedent in Alabama: A similar case in Alabama found over 60% of purged voters were legal U.S. citizens.
Supreme Court Allows Virginia’s Voter Registration Purge to Resume
Deep Look
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that Virginia may proceed with its voter registration purge, upholding the Republican-led state administration’s decision to strike certain voter registrations they believe belong to non-U.S. citizens. This Supreme Court decision arrives amidst heightened scrutiny of voting rights and election integrity as Election Day approaches.
Virginia’s Voter Registration Purge Process
Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin issued an executive order in August instructing election officials to conduct daily checks against the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles data to identify and remove non-citizens from the voter rolls. The goal, according to Youngkin’s office, is to prevent unauthorized votes. However, the timing of the order, implemented on August 7—exactly 90 days before the election—raised legal concerns. Federal law mandates a 90-day “quiet period” before elections to avoid last-minute voter roll changes that may inadvertently remove legitimate voters.
In early October, U.S. District Judge Patricia Giles blocked the purge, concluding that removing more than 1,600 voter registrations violated federal election law. Giles permitted election officials to make individualized changes to voter rolls if necessary but prohibited mass purges of the kind prescribed by Youngkin’s directive. Judge Giles also ordered the state to notify impacted voters and local registrars by Wednesday, restoring their registrations in time for the election.
Supreme Court’s Emergency Decision and Dissent
The Supreme Court’s emergency ruling reverses the lower court’s restriction on the purge. As is typical for emergency cases, the Court provided no detailed rationale for its decision, but three liberal justices, concerned over potential implications for legitimate voters, dissented. The ruling underscores a continuing national debate over voter roll maintenance practices, especially in key battleground states like Virginia, where nearly six million voters are registered.
Former President Donald Trump and other Republican leaders have praised the move, asserting that it addresses concerns about potential illegal votes. Trump called the lower court’s halt “a travesty” and reiterated his stance that “Only U.S. Citizens should be allowed to vote.”
Ongoing Legal Opposition
In response to the Supreme Court ruling, the Justice Department and private advocacy groups have continued their legal challenges, arguing that Youngkin’s purge risks disenfranchising eligible voters. The National Voter Registration Act prohibits sweeping changes to voter lists just before elections, given the difficulty of swiftly correcting errors that may inadvertently remove lawful voters. Court records indicate that some Virginians removed from the rolls have since been identified as legitimate U.S. citizens.
The Justice Department’s lawsuit against Virginia is one of several national efforts to maintain federal oversight on voter roll maintenance. Lawyers involved in the case argue that Youngkin’s order not only risks mistakenly purging legitimate voters but also undermines public confidence in the electoral process.
A Similar Case in Alabama
The Virginia ruling echoes a similar legal battle in Alabama, where a federal judge recently ordered the state to reinstate voting rights for more than 3,200 individuals previously deemed ineligible. State records revealed that 2,000 of the 3,251 Alabama voters purged were, in fact, legally registered U.S. citizens. This outcome has fueled further questions about the accuracy of large-scale voter purges and their potential to disenfranchise citizens mistakenly classified as ineligible.
With these rulings, voter roll maintenance practices remain at the forefront of election integrity debates, raising ongoing questions about balancing election security with citizens’ voting rights. As the legal battles continue, Virginia’s approach could set a precedent for similar actions in other states ahead of future elections.
