The DOJ has sued Virginia for purging its voter rolls too close to the November 5th election.
In August, Gov. Glenn Youngkin issued an executive order to remove noncitizens from the voting rolls.
Yeah, the removal happened in early August.
Less than a month before the election, the DOJ is just now suing Virginia.
Youngkin released this statement:
“With less than 30 days until the election, the Biden-Harris Department of Justice is filing an unprecedented lawsuit against me and the Commonwealth of Virginia, for appropriately enforcing a 2006 law signed by Democrat Tim Kaine that requires Virginia to remove noncitizens from the voter rolls – a process that starts with someone declaring themselves a non-citizen and then registering to vote. Virginians – and Americans – will see this for exactly what it is: a desperate attempt to attack the legitimacy of the elections in the Commonwealth, the very crucible of American Democracy. With the support of our Attorney General, we will defend these commonsense steps, that we are legally required to take, with every resource available to us. Virginia’s election will be secure and fair, and I will not stand idly by as this politically motivated action tries to interfere in our elections, period.”
The DOJ claimed Virginia violated Section 8(c)(2) of the NVRA, also known as the Quiet Period Provision.
That rule says states cannot remove voters from rolls “no later than 90 days before federal elections.”
Youngkin signed the EO on August 7. The election is November 5.
I sat down with a calendar and if you count August 7 and November 5 then it’s 91 days.
So…the DOJ doesn’t have a case. The DOJ wrote in the filing:
On August 7, 2024—90 days before the November 5, 2024, federal General Election—the Commonwealth of Virginia announced the formalization of a systematic process to remove “individuals who are unable to verify that they are citizens to the [Virginia] Department of Motor Vehicles from the statewide voter registration list” (the “Program”).
In this action, the United States alleges that the implementation of the Program violates the Quiet Period Provision.
The Quiet Period Provision embodies Congress’s clear and considered judgment to restrict states from engaging in systematic processes aimed at removing the names of ineligible voters from the rolls in the final days before an election. And for good reason: systematic removal programs are more error-prone than other forms of list maintenance, and eligible voters placed on the path to removal days or weeks before Election Day may be deterred from voting or unable to participate in the election on the same terms that they would have but for the Commonwealth’s error.
“The Commonwealth’s unlawful actions here have likely confused, deterred, and removed U.S. citizens who are fully eligible to vote—the very scenario that Congress tried to prevent when it enacted the Quiet Period Provision,” added the DOJ.
Let me get this straight. Youngkin signed the EO 90 days before the election but is still in the wrong.
*sigh* He should have done it in July. But still. The point stands. He did it 91 days before the election.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The Democrats must be worried that Virginia might go for Trump. Interesting…
More like the Democrat donor base is saying, “Do something, anything, or else we are going to get creamed!”
It’s a move made at the last minute to try to get some leftist judge to sign an order but then there will be no time left on the clock to counter
Well, Youngkin should simply ignore the order.
First of all the order would not be to him but to the election registrars. But anyone who ignores a court order will be held in contempt and arrested. (That includes Youngkin, if he were to ignore one directed to him. He is not above the federal courts.)
Milhouse worried his party’s cheating may be curtailed…..
And there you go, you filthy liar, lying right on cue.
So, you make a remark like that for his stating of facts. Good job!
Right. This DOJ is nothing if not predictable when it comes to double standards.
Isn’t it too late for the Democrat Office of Justice to get this resolved in the fashion they want before the election?
IANAL so I’m not sure how the legalities break down, but I suspect the DOJ will be arguing notification of the removal of names has to be done at least 90 days before an election, and that an executive order for their removal is not the same thing as the actual removal.
Thus the DOJ could possibly technically be correct about the letter of the law, but they aren’t worried about the spirit of it while Virginia is trying to ensure only legitimate voters can vote, which is in keeping with the spirit of the law.
“Isn’t it too late for the Democrat Office of Justice to get this resolved in the fashion they want before the election?”
Yes, but they aren’t interested in a resolution. The point is to cost Virginia money, time and other resources defending against the lawsuit.
Remember: “The process is the punishment.”
From where I stand, the entire Democrat Department of “Justice” is corrupt and needs to be eliminated from existence.
They’re not just technically correct, they are correct. The executive order was not to remove certain people, it was to launch a program to remove people, and it is blatantly illegal for such a program to operate within 90 days of an election. The DOJ filing cites evidence that it is still running, as late as October 7! There’s no way to defend that.
As milhouse notes – The Younkn EO was signed 91 days prior to election which is more than 90 days in the NVRA. However, the actual process of removing voters will cover a period from 91 days before the election through approx 30 days before the election, therefore the NVRA time limit will kick in. So milhouse statement is correct.
Two questions that I dont know the answer (without doing some in depth research).
a) To what extent does federal law govern state law provisions for elections. (CRA comes to mind)
b) what is the statutory definition of voter in the NVRA. Is a former quailified voter who is a former resident or dead a voter under the statute? Is an illegal alien who was never eligible to be a voter a voter under the statutory definition of voter?
It was signed 90 days before the election, not 91. So the very next day after the order was signed, the program it ordered became illegal.
All valid federal laws override state law. And nobody even alleges that the NVRA is invalid. It was properly enacted under Congress’s 14th amendment powers, as well as its power to regulate congressional elections.
For the current purpose, anyone on the roll is a “voter”, regardless of whether they’re entitled to be on it.
Millhouse – “For the current purpose, anyone on the roll is a “voter”, regardless of whether they’re entitled to be on it.”
fwiw –
a) the statute does not define voter
B) US 52 chapter 205, specifically 52us 20507 governs the removal of voters which includes (prevents the removal of) ineligible voters.
C) with the caveat, that I havent fully read the provisions, there is an exception for dead voters inside the 90 day window and there may be an exception to some ineligible voters. (It may be permissible to remove ineligible voters with some limitations)
See section 20507 (c)(2)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/subtitle-II/chapter-205
just to be clear – I am not arguing that the DOJ position is correct or that the DOJ position is wrong. Just stating that removal of ineligible voters after the start of the 90 day window may be legal under the NVRA statute with emphasis on the word May.
Removing individual voters remains legal if it’s not part of a program. If a registrar receives specific evidence about a specific individual, generally meaning evidence that couldn’t have been obtained earlier, e.g. the fact that the person just died last week, they can and should be removed. The rolls aren’t frozen for 90 days, but programs like this have to be complete 90 days before the election.
Have you read the executive order or do you rely on the misrepresentation made by the Biden DoJ?
The requested resolutions are to order the program stopped through the election, restore any registered voters removed by the program during the quiet period, and notifying those removed that their registration was reinstated. The first is literally an order to do nothing, which is easily accomplished, and the others should take little time or effort.
The Hail-Mary becomes a pick-six.
Dear DOJ,
Suck a cock.
Sincerely,
The American People
Don’t threaten them with a good time.
They won’t necessarially suck it, but they will hold it in their mouth until the swelling subsides.
Typical Trump supporter response. Do you really think this will help Trump?
Concern troll is, again, concerned.
Hey, you two. The bell rang; recess is over. Clean it up or Mrs. Jones will send you to the principal’s office.
Not surprised. DoJ did the same here in Alabama a couple weeks ago. If it were up to me the State would cross reference the DL photos for those individuals they identified as non Citizens. Post those pictures and names with the polling officials and when they show up to vote and hand in the ballot or it is mailed in to the clerk send LEO to arrest them for voter fraud. Put their ballot in the disputed pile in the meantime forcing the d/prog to make the case in public for their ballot to be counted.
Voter registration is pretty straightforward. You gotta be a Citizen, meet the residency requirement to include residing in the physical address provided and then update that address/info if you move. Intense scrutiny needs to be applied to these lists to ensure accuracy and comply with the other part of ‘motor voter’; regular, accurate maintenance of the voter rolls to purge ineligible folks.
the left can allow trump to win knowing that the mess the left has made and all the never trumper gop
he will need our help by having the people attend local school meetings etc and raising cain
Do people not qualified to vote become “voters” by being illegally registered as such? Their registrations are nullities at law. They legally are not voters. They can be removed from the roles at any time with impunity.
If you had a perfect error-free program then nullifying registrations, even on election day, is fine with me. In an error-prone world there should be a “statute of limitations” period to prevent incorrect removals without time to correct them and the NVRA sets that at 90 days. This lawsuit is alleging that citizens have been removed during those 90 days and more are at risk of being incorrectly removed before the election.
That can easily be accounted for by automatically staying the removal of anyone from the roles if they swear an affidavit of citizenship/qualification to vote. This would allow them to vote while discouraging those who are lawfully removed from the roles by threatening punishment for perjury (and other crimes if they, subsequent to filing an affidavit, vote illegally).
you swear that you are a citizen when you register, lying about it twice is no solution
Don’t most states have provisional ballots you can fill out if you show up at your polling place and find you’re not on the books for some reason?
I had to bring a few forms of ID and proof of residency, but was able to register at the polling place on election day my first time voting in a new state. (Of course, it might have been more of a hassle on the big day in November, instead of a sleepy local election…)
That’s what this program does. They don’t even need an affidavit; they just need to reply to the notice, within 14 days of receiving it, saying they’re a citizen. If they don’t reply within 14 days they’re removed.
That doesn’t change the fact that the mere operation of a programmatic removal within 90 days of an election is expressly forbidden by law. This program should have been launched several months earlier, and stopped operating on Aug-7.
No, they cannot be removed at any time, because the law explicitly forbids the operation of any programmatic removal within 90 days of an election. Federal law is the supreme law of the land, and overrides any state law or constitution.
And that’s even if we could be sure that they’re all illegally registered. The DOJ alleges that a significant number of such removals are in fact citizens and thus eligible, and they have been harmed by this illegal program of removal.
I don’t see how VA has a defense against this.
” Federal law is the supreme law of the land, and overrides any state law or constitution.”
Sanctuary cities/states.
So much for that theory.
What about them? They do not violate any federal law. They can’t, because the tenth amendment prevents Congress from making any law against them.
I won’t downtick this, Milhouse, but still question it. Don’t laws of citizenship and LEGAL alien status come into the picture here? How can border jumpers be legal just because a – in this case municipality – say being here illegally is acceptable?
Border jumpers are not legal, and sanctuary cities/states don’t claim they are.
Sanctuary states are not violating any law. They are simply exercising their constitutional right to refuse to cooperate with ICE. Congress can’t make a law requiring their cooperation.
Sanctuary cities are exercising their states’ rights, which they have the option to do unless their state tells them otherwise. CA has told its cities they must do so, TX has told its citiies they can’t.
In case the above wasn’t clear:
Before this “sanctuary city” business started, it was taken for granted that if a city became aware that someone was here illegally, and especially if it arrested someone who turned out to be here illegally, it would as a matter of course notify ICE, and let it decide what to do about it. And if ICE was aware that local authorities had someone in custody whom it wanted to deport it would request that they hold the person until it could come and pick him up, and they would as a matter of course comply with this request. Also if ICE wanted to arrest someone and needed some cooperation from the local police this would be readily granted. That’s still how it is in places like Texas.
But all of this is strictly voluntary. No law requires it, and no law can require it. States have a constitutional right, recognized since the early days of the republic, to refuse all such cooperation.
Cities, as agencies of the state, have the same right vis a vis the federal government, but not vis a vis their state. Their state may order them to cooperate, as TX has done, or it may order them not to cooperate, as CA has done. Both are equally valid, since the right belongs to the state, not to the cities.
States and cities still remain subject to federal law. All valid federal laws are binding on the states, and override anything in state laws or constitutions that contradict them. So for instance sanctuary states may NOT interfere with ICE operations, and they don’t. ICE is completely free to roam CA at will and arrest whomever it suspects of being here illegally, and no state or local government can stop it, nor do they even try to. If a local official interferes with ICE, the ICE agents will arrest him and the US Attorney will prosecute him, as happened to that judge in MA (I think) who assisted an illegal alien to escape out the back door. No “sanctuary” status can protect such criminal behavior.
I don’t see how ANYTHING other than this answer is the correct answer.
aveGinOly | October 11, 2024 at 10:00 pm
Do people not qualified to vote become “voters” by being illegally registered as such?
Dave as I noted above – it depends on the statutory definition of “voter” See my comment above
They can’t be removed from the rolls within 90 days of an election due to Federal statute; ‘motor voter’.
That doesn’t mean they can lawfully cast a ballot. This is where coordination comes in. The State needs to provide the names/DL photos to the poll workers. When these folks come to get a ballot on election day they get handed one but:
1. File an objection
2. If they proceeded to cast ballot put the ballot in the disputed pile (won’t be counted until resolved and even then only if the margin of victory could be overcome by the number of disputed ballots).
3. Send LEO to arrest them for voter fraud for the illegally.cast ballot and for illegal voter registration.
Pain in the ass compared to simply removing them from voter registration roll but …this is the road d/prog wanted to go down so ….no whining should be accepted. Arrest, trial, conviction, sentence for max punishment. Turn them over to ICE if applicable as convicted felons.
That only works if they turn out to indeed be aliens. It’s almost guaranteed that at least some of them are citizens, and DOJ alleges that a significant number are. The moment one of these citizens is arrested you have a huge shit show that will result in the arresting officers ending up arrested themselves, along with whoever gave them the order.
I know I am shoveling sand against the tide here, but in this old man’s opinion, motor voter should be taken away. Too much room for the union-protected clerks to register folks not qualified for registration.
Do you want to vote? Then you damned well better get your ass up off the couch and go to the registrar of voter. the county clerk, or one of the deputized volunteer registrars generally found in high-traffic public areas, and register. You bring proof of citizenship and a photo ID.
As for The Usual Suspects whining about photo IDs and getting to the place to register: the same bus that took you to the welfare office can take you to register to vote.
Still can’t make it? TOUGH!
I agree.
Some people do have difficulty getting ID, and they in fact can’t get welfare, or a drivers license, or open a bank account, or get a legal job. The Dem argument is that none of these are constitutional rights, whereas voting is, so it’s unconstitutional to deprive such people of the right to vote, and therefore everyone else without ID, even those who could easily get it, have to be let in through the same gate.
But here’s something that would surprise a lot of people: There is no constitutional right to vote. Nowhere in the constitution does it define who can or can’t vote, because, in principle at least, that is a decision for each state.
Even the 14th amendment recognized that; while § 1 required the states to give everyone equal protection of the laws, § 2 enacts an elaborate scheme to discourage states from depriving black people of the franchise. If § 1 had already banned such behavior § 2 would not have been needed.
In the event, § 2 never came into effect, because it was overridden by the 15th amendment, which is the very first time the states’ control of the franchise was limited. But look at the 15th’s text. Also look at the 19th, 24th, and 26th. All four of these amendments limit a state’s flexibility in deciding who can vote; but they don’t take it away. States still have the authority to decide who has a right to vote and who doesn’t, except that they can’t use six specific criteria: race, color, having once been a slave, sex, nonpayment of taxes, and age over 18. But they can limit it on any other grounds they like.
That’s why Dems try to shoehorn ID requirements into the listed criteria. They either claim that ID requirements are intended to restrict the franchise by race, because the state legislatures know that black people are more likely than white people to be unable to get ID, and they’re deliberately exploiting that difference; or they claim that since obtaining ID costs money, that money constitutes a tax on all people, and when a state won’t let someone vote because they have no ID it’s effectively punishing them for not paying the tax.
The first argument is not frivolous if they can prove that this was indeed the legislature’s intent all along. That’s got to be difficult to impossible to prove, even if it’s ever true, which I doubt. But they try.
The second argument, in my opinion, is always frivolous. The cost of obtaining ID is not a tax, for the simple reason that there is no legal requirement to pay it. It’s completely legal not to have ID; living without it can be difficult, but if someone is willing to put up with those difficulties the state can’t just charge him with not having it. A tax is not optional. So it’s not a tax and the 24th doesn’t apply. At least that’s how I see it.
That’s a really bad plan. The left will find at least one person who is an eligible voter and incorrectly removed, have them vote, and then wait for them to be arrested. Once that happens VA, Youngkin, the officers, and so on are paying out big bucks and election integrity efforts will take a big publicity loss.
The DOJ is all about the show. Can’t wait until Mary McCord is arrested
Did you read the complaint before writing this? The date the executive order was issued is irrelevant. It is the date of the removals that matter and all removals that happened after the date of issuance happened within the “Quiet Period”.
It could be that Gov. Youngkin’s program doesn’t violate the Quiet Period or that only permitted removals have and will happen during this Quiet Period, but you didn’t even mention those possibilities.
Two months is PDQ for the federal government so complaining about the timing is not a valid criticism.
BTW, despite what Gov. Youngkin’s press release claimed this lawsuit is not unprecedented. Florida was sued in 2012 for allegedly violating the Quiet Period for example.
If you can have same day registration, you can have same day removal
No, you can’t, because the law expressly forbids it. Every registrar who removed someone under this program after Aug-7 has broken the law.
Congress could modify motor voter statute to accommodate that. Ain’t gonna happen. I suggest the reasonable middle ground is 45 days prior as the cutoff for both removal and new registrations plus making the 45 day mark the first day ballots may be issued/mailed. That brings all ballots, all registration timelines and votes into harmony with the same timeline as ‘military and overseas’ voter timeline of 45 days. Allow very limited absentee ballots; military and overseas employment + emergency hospitalization and for elderly/disabled IF those elderly and disabled don’t have a DL, a vehicle, a home or Apt lease in their name. If they have those they are IMO capable of going to vote in person.
As as society we gotta stop treating adults as incapable of understanding very clear rules and procedural timelines then applying those ruthlessly. Every adult knows when elections are held and can easily do an online search to find out if confused. Plan accordingly. Gonna take a casual tourist trip to Europe during election day? Either reschedule the trip so you can vote in person with everyone else or STFU b/c life is a series of tradeoffs between/among the choices we have. Choose wisely.
This suit is about applying clear rules and procedural timelines. The NVRA to be precise.
Indeed. But CommoChief says, and I agree, that NVRA is a bad law and should be repealed or significantly amended.
Milhouse,
I was just amused by the irony. It wasn’t really intended to be about the law or what the law should be.
“He should have done it in July.”
The law says 90 days. Not 120. If the stupid government legislators wanted 120 days, they should have written the law for 120 days.
The Department of Just Us is the group disenfranchising voters.
Bullshit. The law says such programs have to stop 90 days before an election. This one was only ordered 90 days before the election, and therefore the very next day it became illegal.
On the contrary, the DOJ has a solid case and I don’t see how VA has anything like a defense.
First of all, August 7 is 90 days before the election, not 91.
Second, where did you get the idea that the date he signed the order is what has to be before 90 days? That’s completely wrong.
The law requires all programmatic cleanups of voter rolls to be complete 90 days before the election. Youngkin first ordered this program to be launched exactly 90 days before the election, which means the very next day it was already illegal to remove anyone pursuant to the order.
The reason DOJ had to wait this long to file the suit is because it had to gather evidence that people had in fact been removed after Aug-7. It cites plenty of evidence that such removals have happened, and it alleges that at least some of those removed are in fact US citizens.
(The evidence cited for this allegation includes the fact that some of them have reregistered and thus stated under oath that they are citizens; I don’t consider that strong evidence, since they may be lying, just as they lied the first time they registered. Then there’s evidence at a linked youtube video, but I have not bothered to watch it, so I don’t know what the quality of that evidence is. Nonetheless even if it turned out that in fact no citizens were removed the violation is still clear; the allegation’s purpose is merely to establish that the violation has caused actual harm, and therefore calls for a strong remedy.)
Agreed. The removals must be completed by the statutory cut off timeline of 90 days prior to the election or delayed until the day after election day. IMO that’s not a good policy if we also allow new registrations subsequent to that date but that’s what Congress decided and we are.stuck with it until they decide to change it.
While I applaud Youngkin’s effort here, I’m curious how many of these non-citizens who registered to vote were prosecuted. Is it even a crime in most states for non-citizens to register to vote? Have they looked at the voting rolls to see how many non-citizens requested ballots or showed up on Election Day?
Nobody has been prosecuted, because there is no evidence against them, at least yet. They’ve simply (and illegally) been removed from the rolls. It may be that investigations will follow, to be followed when appropriate with prosecutions, but that will all happen (if it does) long after the election.
Youngkin, sufficiently embarrassed, could hold a press conference, etc and plainly say, “We have your names and will be checking after the election – any illegal voting will be prosecuted and expelled from the country, as applicable.” I suspect that could reduce the issue materially.
He can’t threaten expulsion, unless Trump wins and orders ICE to cooperate. It’s not in his hands. Prosecution is (or at least it’s in the AG’s hands, which is close enough.)
Nobody prosecutes them because that exposes the whole grift.
>>I sat down with a calendar and if you count August 7 and November 5 then it’s 91 days.<<
So in that case they had exactly one day to remove all illegal registrations from the voter rolls as the very next day would put removals into the NVRA mandated Quiet Period and be prohibited.
Youngkin simply waited far too long into the election year before issuing the executive order establishing program of illegal voter registration removals. If he had signed and established this program at the start of the election year (01/01/2024) and then ran it up to the 90-day limit and stopped there he’d be fine. But he didn’t. and now the DOJ is calling him to accounts for violating the NVRA.
I suspect the lawyers Youngkin relied on to draft and implement the EO believe they are in compliance with the NVRA. I can’t explain their argument, but it’s a good bet they have one.
If not, then he should fire them.
Is there a penalty for voting illegally?
It’s a Democrat-controlled government. There are no penalties for doing anyghing…
…unless you’re a Conservative. Then they throw the book at you.
No, it’s not a Democrat-controlled government in Virginia.
Yes casting a ballot when not eligible to.do.so is a.crime most States. As is presenting info to voter registration that allowed one to be registered. Usually there’s at minimum a perjury count and some States have additional specific penalties for registering to vote under false pretenses. Likewise this applies to incorrect voter registration info such as change of physical address; if you and your cousin who lives one street over swap houses and don’t update the physical address for registration and cast a ballot that’s also illegal.
The voter registration files are THE key. Go through them to find incorrect addresses by cross check with DL data and property tax data. Ensure the address provided is a Residential address not a commercial address. Ensure the physical address isn’t home to more folks than it can truly accommodate; a one bedroom apt with half a.dozen folks listing it as their residence on voter registration forms.
Yes, but you have to do your homework and actually check each address before making allegations. Not like those “experts” in Georgia who made total fools of themselves and of the Trump campaign by making false allegations based entirely on what they considered likely.
I’m particularly thinking of the idiot who testified to a legislative committee that over 100 voters were registered to an address which was that of a Mailboxes Etc. Unfortunately for him one of the legislators on the committee recognized the address, and informed him that it’s a large apartment building that easily has over 100 adult residents. The presence of a Mailboxes Etc was irrelevant.
One can only hope that VA slow rolls the stoppage of this program.
Let them all vote.
Then the day after the election cross reference EVERY voter against the list of voters who should have been removed and then sick the law on them for voter fraud.
Remove every single ballot cast by each person on that list and if they can prove they are citizens then add them back in.
The important thing here is to publish the number of voters who were on that list who the. Got caught voting. That would be fodder for future legal action if the result was closer than the total number of “illigal” votes cast.
The other thing is why didn’t the Governor do this shit a year ago or 6 months ago or sooner!
Don’t give Democrats an inch because they will take a foot and before you know it you don’t have any legs left 🙄
1. Not everyone on the list is in fact illegally registered. Before prosecuting an individual you’d better have solid evidence about that specific person.
2. After the election it’s too late to remove someone’s ballot. Ballots are anonymous. Even if they come in by mail, once the outer envelope is validated the inner envelope is thrown in with all the others and there’s no way to trace who cast each one. That’s fundamental to a secret ballot.
There was a private suit filed before the DOJ one. This one makes additional claims and requests additional relief, but IMHO the additional claims are far weaker than the quiet period violations.
Virginia Coalition for Immigrant Rights et al v. Beals et al
https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/1-2024-10-07-Complaint.pdf