Twenty-six Republican attorneys general, along with the state of Virginia, have urged the Supreme Court to halt a lower court decision that restored the voting rights of 1,600 residents. The amicus brief filed supports Virginia’s argument that the ruling is overly broad and lacks standing under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). The attorneys general argue that the decision should be reversed to ensure that noncitizens do not vote in the upcoming election. The Justice Department had argued that the removal of voters was conducted too close to the election and violated the “quiet period” provision under NVRA, a contention that was upheld by a federal judge and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The amicus brief filed by the Republican attorneys general describes the lower court ruling as a “sweeping interpretation of the NVRA” that could raise constitutional questions about the law itself. Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin has maintained that the voters were removed legally based on a precedent set by a 2006 state law enacted by then-Governor Tim Kaine. This process involved comparing the state Department of Motor Vehicles’ list of noncitizens with the list of registered voters and notifying those without citizenship that their voter registration would be canceled unless they could prove their citizenship within 14 days. Youngkin and Attorney General Jason S. Miyares argue that the lower court rulings were individualized and not systematic as claimed by the Justice Department.
Youngkin and Miyares have also raised concerns that restoring the voters just days before the election could create chaos in the voting process. The Republican attorneys general supporting Virginia’s position argue that changing the rules in the middle of the game would be unconstitutional, as the people of Virginia have decided that noncitizens should not be allowed to vote. Governor Youngkin has vowed to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, emphasizing the importance of upholding the state’s voter qualifications. The support of all Republican-led states in the amicus brief has brought additional attention to the case in the lead-up to the election.
The group of Republican attorneys general also objected to the Justice Department’s interpretation of NVRA protections as overly broad. They argued that the law in place in Virginia was not designed to systematically remove residents from the voter rolls, as claimed by Justice Department officials. The attorneys general called for the Supreme Court to grant Virginia’s emergency motion and restore the status quo to prevent noncitizens from voting. The legal battle over the restoration of voting rights for the 1,600 residents has become a focal point in the final stretch before the election, with implications for both Virginia and the broader debate over election integrity.
The contentious issue has highlighted the importance of voter qualifications and the maintenance of voter rolls leading up to the election. The legal challenges and conflicting interpretations of the NVRA have created uncertainty around the voting process in Virginia and drawn nationwide attention. The involvement of multiple Republican attorneys general in support of Virginia’s position has underscored the political significance of the case and the implications for future elections. As the legal battle continues, the Supreme Court will ultimately decide whether to uphold the lower court ruling restoring the voting rights of 1,600 residents or reverse it, setting a precedent for voter qualifications and roll maintenance across the country.
