The U.S. Supreme Court issued a contentious order Wednesday that enables Virginia officials to proceed with their controversial voter roll purge just days before the 2024 election. This decision has raised alarm among voting rights advocates and civil rights organizations who argue that the ruling jeopardizes the rights of eligible voters across the state.
In August, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin, a Republican, signed an executive order to expedite the removal of noncitizens from the state’s voter rolls, aiming to protect election integrity. The purge targeted individuals whose Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) records indicated non-citizen status or had left that status field blank. Virginia officials argued that the purge only affected ineligible voters, emphasizing that it was a necessary measure for a “secure” election.
But civil rights groups and the Department of Justice (DOJ) quickly challenged the program, filing a lawsuit that revealed errors in the purge list. Many individuals had mistakenly indicated their non citizen status on DMV forms, or had since become naturalized citizens. These errors led to the removal of numerous eligible voters, sparking accusations of voter suppression by state officials.
The purge not only targeted specific groups but also drew scrutiny under federal law. The 1993 National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) contains a 90-day “quiet period” before federal elections, during which systematic voter roll removals are prohibited. This provision aims to reduce errors in last-minute purges that could unintentionally disenfranchise eligible voters.
By signing the executive order precisely 90 days before Election Day, Youngkin’s initiative appeared to skirt NVRA protections. The DOJ and civil rights groups argued that Virginia’s purge was not only in violation of NVRA’s quiet period rule but that it constituted a systematic voter removal—a direct breach of federal law.
Virginia’s attempt to remove potentially ineligible voters led to errors affecting eligible citizens, causing direct harm to individuals with longstanding voting histories. One example is Roanoke resident Lawrence Otey, who had been voting since the Jimmy Carter administration. A simple mistake on a DMV form, where he accidentally checked the “non-U.S. citizen” box, led to his removal from the voter rolls. Speaking to Cardinal News, Otey lamented, “I’ve been voting since Jimmy Carter,” only to have his decades-long record interrupted by a bureaucratic misstep.
Similarly, Lynchburg resident Nadra Wilson, a U.S.-born citizen, was removed from the rolls due to clerical errors. Although the state sent her a notice to correct the situation, it was misaddressed, arriving past the deadline. Frustrated and disenfranchised, Wilson expressed her disappointment to NPR, calling the experience “very, very unfair.” Her story highlights the practical barriers that voter roll purges can place before citizens in close proximity to Election Day.
Following the lawsuit by the DOJ and civil rights organizations, lower courts ordered Virginia to halt the purge and reinstate the affected voter registrations. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this decision, emphasizing the risk of disenfranchisement. But with the Supreme Court’s order to lift the injunction on Wednesday, Virginia officials can now proceed with the purge, leaving potentially thousands of eligible citizens off the voter rolls.
The order was issued without an official opinion, and only Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented, underscoring ideological divisions within the Court. By choosing not to uphold lower court rulings that defended voter protections under the NVRA, the Supreme Court may have created a precedent that invites further challenges to similar voter roll protections.
While Virginia offers same-day voter registration, which theoretically allows voters who were purged to re-register on Election Day, the process is far from simple. For many voters unaware of their purged status, the additional steps required to cast a ballot can be confusing, time-consuming, and resource-intensive, particularly if they lack the documents required for same-day registration. Those arriving at their polling location, unaware of their disenfranchised status, may face long delays, bureaucratic hurdles, or the potential of missing the opportunity to vote altogether.
Civil rights groups were quick to respond to the Supreme Court’s decision. Ryan Snow, an attorney with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, criticized the ruling, stating, “To say this decision is a disappointment is an understatement. The Supreme Court just ignored a key provision of the National Voter Registration Act…purging eligible voters on the eve of the election.” Snow and others argue that the ruling undermines federal protections designed to uphold the democratic process and creates new obstacles for vulnerable voting populations.
Advocates have raised concerns that the ruling might pave the way for similar purges in other states, particularly those with partisan motivations in close electoral races. By permitting a last-minute purge to continue, the Supreme Court signals a potential openness to future cases that could challenge long-established protections for eligible voters. The Virginia case exemplifies the friction between state autonomy and federal protections in ensuring fair and accessible elections.
The Virginia case highlights the potential for future state-level voting restrictions to advance with reduced oversight. Critics worry that this decision reflects a broader trend within the judiciary to prioritize state actions over voter protections. In a divided political climate, such rulings risk normalizing restrictive voting practices and could encourage other states to adopt similar purges, especially during contentious election cycles.
For individuals like Lawrence Otey and Nadra Wilson, the consequences of bureaucratic errors and procedural delays are acutely personal, leading to the loss of voting rights in one of the most critical elections of their lifetime. Wilson’s frustration encapsulates the disenfranchisement felt by many purged voters, as she remarked, “I was born in Brooklyn, New York—I’m a citizen… This is very, very unfair.”
COMMENTS