Virginia Asks Supreme Court to Halt Order Forcing State to Keep Noncitizens on Voter Rolls
“The injunction…will also irreparably injure Virginia’s sovereignty, confuse her voters, overload her election machinery and administrators, and likely lead noncitizens to think they are permitted to vote…”
Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares requested the Supreme Court for an emergency stay on the Fourth Circuit’s decision to uphold a lower court’s ruling stopping the state from removing noncitizens from voter rolls.
The lower court also told Virginia to reinstate everyone the state removed.
- Virginia Gov. Youngkin Issues Executive Order to Remove Noncitizens From Voting Rolls
- DOJ Sues Virginia for Purging Voter Rolls Too Close to Election
- Judge Orders Virginia to Restore 1,600 People to Voter Rolls
RedState covered the Fourth Circuit decision: Fourth Circuit Sides With DOJ in Virginia Non-Citizen Voter Skirmish; Next Stop: Supreme Court
“The injunction, which prohibits the application of a law that has been on the books since the Justice Department precleared it in 2006, will also irreparably injure Virginia’s sovereignty, confuse her voters, overload her election machinery and administrators, and likely lead noncitizens to think they are permitted to vote, a criminal offence that will cancel the franchise of eligible voters,” claimed Miyares.
Miyares also said the injunction violates Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1, 4–5 (2006) (per curiam).
Purcell centered around Arizona’s Proposition 200, which required people to register to vote with a photo ID.
The district court denied a restraining order requested by those who sued the states.
The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for an injunction, which the court granted.
SCOTUS decided 9-0 that “the Ninth Circuit erred in granting an injunction against the enforcement of Proposition 200.”
SCOTUS ruled that an appellate court cannot overturn a district court decision without factual findings or any reasoning:
Although at the time the Court of Appeals issued its order the District Court had not yet made factual findings to which the Court of Appeals owed deference, see Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 52(a), by failing to provide any factual findings or indeed any reasoning of its own the Court of Appeals left this Court in the position of evaluating the Court of Appeals’ bare order in light of the District Court’s ultimate findings. There has been no explanation given by the Court of Appeals showing the ruling and findings of the District Court to be incorrect. In view of the impending election, the necessity for clear guidance to the State of Arizona, and our conclusion regarding the Court of Appeals’ issuance of the order we vacate the order of the Court of Appeals.
Miyares told SCOTUS that the “Fourth Circuit refused to apply Purcell,” thus violating “this Court’s precedent.”
Miyares pointed out a mixed message made by the Fourth Circuit:
The court held that the NVRA’s [National Voter Registration Act of 1993] Quiet Period Provision applies to noncitizens because the NVRA contains no explicit exception for them and that Virginia’s program was “systematic.” App. 249–50. At the same time, the district court held that noncitizens could be removed under the General Removal Provision, despite that provision not containing an explicit exception for noncitizens either. Balancing the equities, the district court relied on hearsay and a smattering of anecdotal evidence to conclude that Virginia’s program would cause irreparable harm and was against the public interest because that evidence showed only that the self-identified noncitizens it ordered Virginia to add to its voting rolls “failed to return a form and attest that they were citizens.” App. 254–55.
It seems like Miyares has a point. If both don’t have an explicit exception for noncitizens, shouldn’t you apply both provisions?
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The Fourth Circuit is competing with the Ninth Circuit to see which can bend legal reasoning more to provide the wokest outcome. It looks like the Fourth Circuit is closing the distance quickly.
Nevada just rules that non postmarked ballots can be accepted for up to three days after the election.
So there’s no shortage of crazy crooked courts.
Too big to rig is the only way … because the steal attempt is coming.
“The injunction, which prohibits the application of a law that has been on the books since the Justice Department precleared it in 2006…”
JoeBama: Make sure the DOJ starts a turf war over an 18 y.o. voter roll law two weeks before a hotly contested potus election.
DOJ: That has free n fair elections written all over it. Sure thing, boss.
They need to share who which party those illigal voters are registered to.
There is no such thing as party registration in Virginia.
What are the odds the Supreme Court decides that the State of Virginia lacks standing?
Ah, the perennial turd in the swimming pool: ‘lacks standing.’
Bullshit. Standing is vital to our entire justice system. It’s a key constitutional requirement.
As the Federalist Papers pointed out during the debate over the constitution, the only meaningful restraint on the judicial branch is the fact that it can’t act on its own. No matter how much it doesn’t like something, it can’t lift a finger to stop it until someone brings a case to it. But allowing people without standing to bring cases would nullify that restraint; if a judge doesn’t like something, rather than just sit there and hope someone will bring a case before him, he can easily find some busybody to do so. You may as well allow him to bring the case himself. That is what the Israeli judiciary did in the 1980s, and that was effectively a coup against the elected government.
I’d say the odds are very high.
The practical argument can be made, based on precedent, that the people with the least standing in the American judicial system are American citizens; at least when opposed by elites and hostile foreign invaders.
Subotai Bahadur
That makes no sense at all. The state is literally a party to the case. The court order that it is appealing is addressed to it. By definition that is standing.
Although you are absolutely correct, I thought to make the same comment but instead gave Matt the benefit of the doubt that he was being sarcastic.
A few ads by Trump in VA this week that DOJ is trying to allow self-proclaimed illegls to vote could be worth more votes than the number at stake in this matter.
Excellent Alinskying. Slow walk the case for the ten days it takes to make it entirely moot.
Because it works for the Democrats. Just like they have a presidential candidate that nobody has voted for, they have a jungle-primary proposition in Arizona that will be on the ballot and for which votes will be counted, despite the initiative having 40,000 indisputable phony signatures that should have kept it off the ballot in the first place, because our progtard SoS ran the clock out.
You have it backwards. The court order is in effect. Virginia is required to add those names back to the roll. Applying to the Supreme Court doesn’t automatically stay the order.
The solution is simple, VA knows who these people are and where they are supposed to vote,…if any show up at a polling place, arrest them immediately, wait for Trump to be inaugurated and have him deport them
To arrest someone you have to have proof that they’re ineligible to vote. Virginia has no such proof. All it has is a declaration the person made, which may or may not be true. That’s enough to remove them from the roll before the 90-day period; it’s not enough to bring criminal charges against them.
Nonsense. People are arrested everyday without “proof”. Arrests are made upon reasonable suspicion, to be proven at trial. The self-declaration of an individual that they have committed a crime is certainly reasonable suspicion, and, like a guilty plea, it is an admission of guilt, often sufficient to prove the charge.
Arrests are made on probable cause, a higher standard than “reasonable suspicion.” Without probable cause, the arrest would be invalid on its face.
Reasonable suspicion is enough to justify the police stopping and talking to you, and also searching you for their own safety while they talk to you. It’s not enough to justify arresting you. For that the conversation or the search must provide them with probable cause.
Every single person removed from the roles had provided *proof of immigration*.
So, excuse me? Yes. That’s proof they were not citizens.
No, there was no proof. Merely a statement that they were not citizens. Against that is the statement they made when they registered, that they were citizens. One of these statements must be false, but in a prosecution the state would have to prove which one.
Be sure to restore them by November 15th
That’s ridiculous. As this post says, Purcell says an appeals court can’t overturn a district court without saying why. It has to say the district court was wrong on the facts, or on the law, or both. Overturning without any facts or reasoning leaves the Supreme Court guessing, and thus unable to review the decision. Here the appeals court upheld the district court. How is that inconsistent with Purcell?
No, Myares makes no sense at all. Why would you need an exception for the General Removal provision? Both provisions are being applied. The law says explicitly that any program for removing voters must be complete 90 days before the election, but individual removals may happen whenever the information comes in. How is that unclear?
Neither provision has an exception for aliens, therefore both apply equally to aliens as they do to everyone else. Alleged aliens, like all other allegedly ineligible voters, may be removed within the 90 days if the state receives information about them showing that they’re ineligible; but the state is explicitly forbidden from running any program to identify such voters and remove them within the 90 days.
Virginia did exactly that. All of these voters were identified by an illegal program. Therefore the district court and the appeals court were correct, and SCOTUS should dismiss this frivolous motion with the contempt it deserves. Next time run your program earlier, when the law says you can.
I wrote this based on the description and quote from Purcell in the post. I subsequently read the Virginia motion, and that’s not the relevant part of Purcell for which VA is raising it. Its main holding is that courts shouldn’t interfere with how states are running an election right before the election. But as the 4th circuit pointed out, if that applied to the Quiet Period provision then it could never be enforced at all, since right before an election is the only time it becomes relevant.
This is more dishonesty on Virginia’s part. Nobody has suggested that there’s anything wrong with the VA law. VA can and should run a program to identify ineligible voters and remove them, and the federal law actually says so. But it has to do so before the 90 days. Federal law explicitly prohibits all such programs within the 90 days. What is unclear about that?
VA needs to remove the ineligible voters they identified individually. As I understand this these ineligible voters know they are not eligible and have self ID attesting that they are ineligible. Then if the DoJ raises more claims VA can use the existing ruling at 4th Circuit to end it. Alternatively just ensure the names ID of these and any other ineligible voters are in the hands of poll officials and poll watchers. Challenge their ballot, put it in the provisional category and then arrest, charge, convict and sentence them for voter fraud/perjury….along with those who assisted their illegal efforts in a coordinated effort/ conspiracy to have ineligible voters registered and to cast an illegal ballot. IOW ensure the Feds understand the Commonwealth VA is also a sovereign with its own law.
That said this is, as a practical matter, flipping stupid but that’s how Motor voter was written and shouldn’t be too difficult to amend with a working Congressional majority and the WH.
there are no laws when the law is breaking the law just a fight for survival. ~~~billy jack
Having now read the application, I see that Virginia does have an argument, but one that has not been mentioned at all in any LI post on the issue: Its argument is that the NRVA clause being cited against it does not apply to people who were never validly on the roll in the first place. It only applies to people who were validly on the roll, because they were eligible when they registered, but have since become ineligible. While such people can be removed if information comes in about them having become ineligible, any systematic program to identify such people and remove them must stop 90 days before the election. But people who should never have been on the roll in the first place may still be identified by programs and removed.
OK, that’s a reasonable argument that deserves consideration by a court. It may be incorrect, but the plaintiffs need to put up a counterargument. It would have been nice if LI’s reporting had mentioned it at some point, rather than cite a bunch of irrelevant and illogical points.
Finally, you have come across it, and good work! Clearly you cannot have a law that says, in effect, if a person is not eligible to vote, they can simply wait until the 90 day restriction period goes into effect, and then register and vote with impunity. This would amount to an “open enrollment” period for illegal voters.
We are not talking about new registrants. This is about people who were on the roll for a long time, and could easily have been identified by a program before the 90 day period, but weren’t. Suddenly, 90 days before the election, they decide to run a program to find ineligible people on the roll and remove them. Problem: the law explicitly prohibits such programs within the 90 days, so the DOJ sued.
Virginia agrees that this is true, but argues that the law only applies to people who were originally eligible and later lost their eligibility, whereas people who were never eligible may be identified by programs at any time. I don’t know whether that argument is correct, but it’s serious enough to deserve a court’s attention.
Milhouse – the Virginia position is similar to language I pointed out 10 or so days ago with the caveat that I did not have time to study to statutory language in sufficient detail to form an opinion.
Milhouse – I havent read up on the merits of either position, so I am not taking a position either way.
Scotusblog has a reasonable summary of the arguments
https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/10/virginia-asks-supreme-court-to-allow-voter-rolls-purge-before-election/
fwiw – the argument set forth in the scotus blog summary is similar to my observation of the merits a week ago.
Can’t they make their votes provisional and give them time to prove their citizenship?’
That’s what Virginia says. But the issue now is not their citizenship or lack thereof, it’s the federal law that says that within 90 days of an election it’s illegal to operate a program to clean up the roll. The time to run such programs is before 90 days. Within the 90 days you can remove people if you happen to find out they’re ineligible, but you can’t use a program to find them. Therefore the court found that removing the names was illegal, so they have to be put back regardless of their actual eligibility. After the election they can be removed again.
Virginia fully acknowledges the law, but says it only applies to people who were originally eligible and then became ineligible. Since these people were never eligible in the first place, it argues the law doesn’t apply to them.
In the alternative it argues that the law only applies to programs that automatically remove people without an individual investigation, whereas in Virginia each name was individually investigated before being removed, so the law doesn’t apply.
These are both serious arguments, which may or may not be correct but deserve to be heard by a court.