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.’
I’d say the odds are very high.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Leave a Comment