A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction Friday, halting Virginia's efforts to remove potential non-citizens from its voter rolls, a move that affects around 1,600 residents just 11 days before the state’s November 5 elections.
F0x News reported that the ruling, handed down by U.S. Judge Patricia Giles, challenges the state's voter removal process as unlawful and too close to the election, violating federal guidelines.
The judge found that the method of removal, which relied on cross-referencing state records, was “systematic” rather than individualized, making it incompatible with the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).
The case originated from a lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice, which claimed that Virginia’s recent actions contravened the NVRA’s rules.
The NVRA sets a 90-day quiet period before federal elections during which states are restricted from carrying out systematic voter roll maintenance. Judge Giles sided with the DOJ, noting that the removals were not specific enough to meet legal standards and that they risked disenfranchising eligible voters.
Judge Giles pointed out that the voter removal process “resulted in eligible voters having their voting registration flagged.” This finding was critical to the decision, as it suggested that some voters were denied their rights without proper notice or time to address potential errors.
Governor Youngkin, who signed the executive order authorizing the voter roll updates in August, is challenging the injunction.
His administration plans to seek an emergency stay from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Youngkin has emphasized that he is prepared to take the fight to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary, asserting that the removal process complied with state and federal laws.
“This is a stunning ruling by a federal judge who is ordering Virginia to reinstate individuals who have self-identified as noncitizens back on the voter rolls,” Youngkin said during an appearance on Fox News. He argued that the voter roll maintenance was conducted on an individualized basis, countering the court's findings of a systematic approach.
The contested process allowed the state to cross-reference its list of registered voters with records from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Any individual flagged as a non-citizen by DMV records was notified of the potential removal of their voter registration. These individuals were given 14 days to provide proof of citizenship before being removed from the voter rolls.
Youngkin’s order, which allowed for daily updates to the voter rolls, was modeled after a 2006 law signed by then-Governor Tim Kaine. However, the timing of the removals, coming so close to the election, became a point of contention in the lawsuit.
The DOJ argued that conducting such systematic updates violated the NVRA's 90-day rule, which aims to prevent large-scale voter roll changes in the lead-up to an election.
The DOJ’s October 11 lawsuit highlighted concerns that some eligible voters may have been removed without sufficient warning or time to address potential mistakes.
Federal law requires that states take extra care when removing voters, especially in the final months leading up to an election, to prevent unintended disenfranchisement.
“States may remove names from official lists of voters in various ways and for various reasons, but they may not carry on this kind of systematic removal program so close to a federal election,” DOJ officials argued. The injunction by Judge Giles underscores the importance of this provision, as the decision aims to restore voting access to those affected.
The timing of the judge's order, coming just 11 days before the November 5 elections, adds a sense of urgency to the situation. The restored voters could play a critical role in the upcoming contests, making the outcome of Youngkin’s appeal particularly consequential. Both sides are bracing for a fast-moving legal process as the Fourth Circuit Court considers the state's request for an emergency stay.
If the appeal reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, it could set a significant precedent regarding how states manage their voter rolls close to an election. The case could also influence national discussions on voter access and election integrity, topics that have become increasingly polarizing in recent years.
Youngkin’s administration is pushing for an expedited decision from the appeals court, with the November 5 election rapidly approaching.
If the Fourth Circuit denies the emergency stay, the governor has vowed to escalate the matter further. Youngkin insists that the executive order was consistent with state law, emphasizing that it sought to ensure the accuracy of Virginia’s voter rolls.
Despite the legal setbacks, Youngkin remains steadfast in his position, asserting that the state's approach to maintaining its voter lists was in line with precedent. He continues to argue that the process was not a blanket effort but targeted at ensuring only eligible voters remain on the rolls.
For Virginia voters, the outcome of this legal battle could have significant implications for their right to vote in the upcoming election. If the injunction holds, approximately 1,600 residents who faced removal could participate in the electoral process.
The case highlights the delicate balance between maintaining voter integrity and protecting citizens' voting rights, a debate that extends beyond Virginia’s borders.
The ruling also puts a spotlight on how state-level policies can impact federal elections, particularly in battleground states like Virginia. The legal challenge may resonate in future debates over voter registration policies nationwide, as it touches on key issues like voter access, citizenship verification, and the role of federal oversight in state elections.
