Federal judge orders Virginia to reinstate over 1,500 self-identified non-citizens on voter rolls just days before a crucial election.
At a Glance
- Biden DOJ sues states over election integrity laws, claiming violations of federal voting rights protections
- Virginia and Alabama face legal challenges for attempting to remove non-citizens from voter rolls
- Wisconsin towns sued for exclusive use of paper ballots, violating accessibility requirements
- Critics argue DOJ actions misinterpret the law and undermine election integrity efforts
- Debate intensifies over balance between state-led election security and federal voting access protections
DOJ Launches Legal Offensive Against State Election Laws
The Biden administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) has initiated a series of lawsuits against several states and towns, challenging their election integrity laws. This aggressive legal strategy targets measures implemented by states like Virginia and Alabama to remove non-citizens from voter rolls, as well as the exclusive use of paper ballots by certain Wisconsin towns. The DOJ contends these actions violate federal voting rights protections outlined in the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) and the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).
And now, in Virginia, a federal judge had ordered the state to reinstate over 1,500 individuals who had self-identified as non-citizens back onto the voter rolls, just days before a crucial election.
Yes, really.
State Officials Push Back Against Federal Intervention
Virginia’s Governor Glenn Youngkin has vehemently criticized the ruling and plans to appeal the decision, arguing that it undermines the state’s efforts to maintain election integrity. The governor emphasized the importance of the state law that mandates procedures for removing non-citizens from voter rolls, with built-in safeguards to confirm citizenship status.
“Let’s be clear about what just happened: only eleven days before a Presidential election, a federal judge ordered Virginia to reinstate over 1,500 individuals – who self-identified themselves as noncitizens – back onto the voter rolls. Almost all these individuals had previously presented immigration documents confirming their noncitizen status, a fact recently verified by federal authorities,” Youngkin said.
Similar legal battles are unfolding in Alabama, where the state faced a lawsuit for its attempts to purge non-citizens from voter rolls. A federal judge ruled against the state, further complicating efforts to ensure only eligible citizens can cast ballots.
Wisconsin Towns in the Crosshairs
The DOJ’s legal offensive extends to rural Wisconsin, where two towns faced lawsuits for not providing accessible voting machines for voters with disabilities, as required by HAVA. While the town of Lawrence settled with the DOJ, Thornapple is appealing a court decision against its use of paper ballots, highlighting the tension between local election practices and federal requirements.
“The federal judge is one of the Biden appointees, so we are not surprised by the ruling. It is erroneous and must be appealed,” Cleta Mitchell, former member of the Oklahoma House of Representatives said.
Critics argue that the DOJ’s actions represent a misinterpretation of federal law and unfairly target jurisdictions attempting to ensure the integrity of their elections. They contend that these lawsuits could potentially undermine legitimate efforts to maintain accurate voter rolls and secure voting processes.
You know what it also means? Non-citizens on the voter rolls. Literally. That’s what they’re doing.
Biden’s Executive Order Raises Constitutional Concerns
Adding fuel to the fire is President Joe Biden’s 2021 Executive Order 14019, which has drawn sharp criticism for what some view as unlawful, partisan interference in the election process. The order directs federal agencies to promote voter registration and participation, including distributing forms and assisting with applications. It also mandates federal employees to participate in early voting and serve as poll workers and observers.
Critics argue that the executive branch lacks constitutional or statutory authority to engage in such voter registration and absentee ballot activities, with few exceptions. They warn that the order could violate multiple federal laws and potentially intimidate or coerce the public interacting with federal agencies.