- RVM News - https://www.rvmnews.com -

Supreme Court Makes Makor Virginia Election Integrity Ruling About Noncitizens

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday granted [1] a request by Republican officials in Virginia to reinstate a state plan intended to remove noncitizens from voter rolls, just ahead of next week’s elections.

Members of the Supreme Court pose for a group photo on Oct. 7, 2022 in Washington, DC, USA at the Supreme Court. Seated from left: Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice of the United States John G. Roberts, Jr., Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. and Associate Justice Elena Kagan Standing behind from left: Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

The court’s decision temporarily blocks a previous ruling by U.S. District Judge Patricia Giles, which had halted the program and mandated the restoration of 1,600 voter registrations that had been removed in recent months.

The court’s brief order specified that the decision faced dissent from the court’s three liberal justices.

The state’s plan identifies individuals for removal based on their responses to a citizenship question on Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) forms. Individuals are flagged if they either check a box indicating they are noncitizens or leave it blank.

The approach, however, has faced significant legal pushback from civil rights groups, including the Virginia Coalition for Immigrant Rights, who argue that the program risks erroneously removing eligible U.S. citizens who may have initially identified as noncitizens but subsequently gained citizenship.

The Biden-Harris administration also contested the timing and potential impact of the program, noting that the National Voter Registration Act prohibits systematic removals from voter rolls within 90 days of an election.

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the Biden administration, argued in court filings that while states have the authority to manage their voter rolls, restrictions apply close to election periods to protect eligible voters from disenfranchisement. “Everyone agrees that states can and should remove ineligible voters, including noncitizens, from their voter rolls,” Prelogar noted. “The only question in this case is when and how they may do so.”

Civil rights groups and the Biden administration raised concerns about eligible voters being caught up in the program. Evidence presented in court documents suggested that U.S. citizens may have been improperly removed, a scenario the 90-day protection period is designed to prevent. “The record makes clear that citizens are being removed from the voter rolls,” argued attorneys representing the civil rights groups.

Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin, a Republican, has backed the initiative, aligning with broader GOP narratives on voting integrity, which suggest noncitizen voting poses a threat to election security.

Former President Donald Trump has frequently promoted similar concerns, alleging widespread voter fraud among noncitizens, though these claims remain largely unproven.

Observers suggest the Virginia case could fuel future challenges to election results if a Republican candidate, including Trump, were to lose.

Additionally, Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, a prominent figure in conservative circles known for his hardline stance on immigration, submitted a legal brief supporting Virginia’s efforts.

Kobach’s brief, which argued in favor of states’ authority to manage voter eligibility, was joined by attorneys general from 25 other Republican-led states.

The state-level debate over voter eligibility has sparked national attention, highlighting a larger divide over voter roll management, particularly close to election periods.

As the Supreme Court’s decision allows Virginia’s removal program to move forward temporarily, the broader legal debate over states’ rights to manage voter rolls versus protections for eligible voters close to elections remains unresolved.

The decision marks a significant point in the ongoing legal and political discourse surrounding voter eligibility, election integrity, and state authority, setting the stage for further disputes over how states can manage their voter rolls without risking the removal of eligible citizens.