The legal tangle deepens as Virginia faces a block from cleaning its voter rolls.
According to the Daily Caller, a federal judge has ordered Virginia to stop the removal of non-citizens from its voter rolls, sparking a heated debate across political lines.
This federal injunction, prompted by a Department of Justice (DOJ) lawsuit on October 12, has halted the state of Virginia from proceeding with its routine voter roll audits by reinstating hundreds of previously removed non-citizen names.
This practice, previously condoned under Democratic administrations, has drawn sharp criticism from Virginia’s governor and a well-known law professor.
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley voiced concerns over the administration's timing in challenging the voter rolls cleanup. He underscored the potential bureaucratic mishaps that non-citizens could encounter at the DMV, which previously had not hindered the DOJ's approval of similar purges. Governor Glenn Youngkin also condemned the federal court’s decision, revealing plans to challenge the ruling.
Professor Turley emphasized that Virginia's method to identify non-citizens is a depersonalized, automated system, which eliminates any bias towards voters’ potential choices. According to Turley, the system simply flags discrepancies for further review. Given the DOJ’s prior approvals, both Turley and Governor Youngkin question the motive behind this sudden legal challenge.
As Turley explained during a televised discussion, Virginia’s approach has routinely been part of its administrative duties, suggesting that this recent legal scrutiny is more about political strategy than safeguarding voter integrity. “Virginia was saying that these are actions that have been taken on the books for years,” Turley stated.
What the Youngkin administration insists is that voters implicated by the automated system have ample opportunity to rectify their registration status, emphasizing a fair process is already in place. “When the DMV kicks back information to us saying that someone has identified themselves correctly or incorrectly as a non-citizen, that person then has 15 days to correct that, and even if they don’t correct that, they can file provisional ballots so that their vote will count as they continue that effort. But this federal judge is saying no, just put them back on the voting rolls,” Turley noted.
The contention surrounding voter rolls coincides with polling that shows substantial public support for stringent voter ID and citizenship verification. Turley highlighted a poll indicating that over 80% of American citizens endorse forms of voter verification which includes presenting proof of citizenship.
“This is an automated system that kicks over and says there is an anomaly here, a conflict, this person has identified themselves as a non-citizen. Many may have done it incorrectly or there might be an error and why they have these belts and suspenders, but part of the problem the states have here is that they feel like they’ve been harassed and sued by the Biden Administration at every turnover voter ID and other laws,” Turley added.
In response to the criticism, Youngkin reiterated the necessity of maintaining accurate voter rolls, especially in a politically critical period, underscoring the broader implications of the court's decision. The ruling not only curtails the state’s ability to manage its voter logs but also stirs broader concerns about the integrity of upcoming elections.
With the Virginia governor planning to appeal against the injunction, the issue seems set to escalate to higher courts. Meanwhile, legal experts, politicians, and voters alike will be watching closely, understanding that the outcome could set significant precedents regarding how states manage their voter rolls and how federal oversight is implemented in election-related processes.
This judicial action against Virginia could have enduring consequences for voter registration processes across the nation, challenging the balance between ensuring voter roll accuracy and avoiding disenfranchisement.
As the case progresses through the judicial system, it underlines the contentious and vital nature of maintaining the integrity and transparency of the electoral system in America.
