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.
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?
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY