U.S. Supreme Court grants stay of challenge to Youngkins' voter purge order • Virginia Mercury

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday granted a temporary stay in ongoing litigation over Gov. Glenn Youngkins' executive order that resulted in more than 6,000 Virginians being removed from the state's voter rolls.

This stay suspends a lower court ruling that would have required the state to restore 1,600 voters to the voter rolls, allowing the Youngkins directive to remain in effect and voter suppressions to continue as the The matter is progressing. The high court's decision drew praise from Youngkin and laments from voter rights groups suing him and the state.

The courts, six conservative justices upheld the suspension, with the three liberals dissenting.

Youngkin hailed the court's decision in a statement as a victory for common sense and electoral fairness.

I am grateful for the work of Attorney General Jason Miyares in this crucial fight to protect the fundamental rights of American citizens. Clean voter rolls are an important part of the overall approach we are taking to ensure the fairness of our elections, Youngkin said, adding that the decision would ensure the security of elections on November 5.

Virginia asks Supreme Court to block reinstatement order for 1,600 people removed from voter rolls

Virginians can vote on Election Day knowing that Virginia's elections are fair, secure and free from political interference, he said.

The order comes after the Republican Party of Virginia filed an amicus brief Tuesday supporting Youngkins' efforts, arguing that the removal of noncitizens from the voter rolls should not be delayed because of the state's mandated silent period. federal government, a buffer period around the elections intended to avoid any disruption of voter registers.

The Republican brief argues that the governor's order was based on Department of Motor Vehicles data and focused on non-citizens, and therefore does not constitute a systematic purge of voters limited by the quiet period.

Opposition to the order came from various groups, including former Republican lawmakers such as Barbara Comstock, Denver Riggleman and Adam Kinzinger, who filed a separate brief urging the Supreme Court to deny the stay. They argue that hasty eviction of voters could lead to eligible citizens losing their rights, citing concerns about the potential exclusion of legitimate voters.

The Miyares and Youngkins administration maintains the executive order is a necessary step for election security.

In a statement released Wednesday, Miyares called the Supreme Court's ruling a victory for election integrity and the rule of law.

While I am pleased that the court acted so quickly, I remain deeply concerned and alarmed that the Biden-Harris administration chose to execute this maneuver just 25 days before the election, he said about the lawsuit filed earlier this month by the Justice Department challenging Youngkins. decree.

Critics, including the Virginia Center for Immigrant Rights and the Virginia chapter of the League of Women Voters, who are suing Youngkin and the state, argue that the purge risks disenfranchising Virginians and impacting disproportionately affected minority voters, calling the move part of a broader trend of restrictive voting. policies. Representatives of the groups and their lawyers expressed disappointment with the Supreme Court's decision during a virtual press conference held Wednesday afternoon.

Ryan Snow, an attorney with the Lawyers Committee For Civil Rights Under Law, called the decision by the nation's highest court an abuse of power.

Bert Bayou of African Communities Together said the actions of states and higher courts “send a disturbing message that (immigrants') voices are not valued, unwanted and are un-American.”

We live in a political climate that fans the flames of xenophobia, he added.

Orion Danjuma, attorney for Protect Democracy, noted that a similar situation also recently unfolded in Alabama. A federal judge blocked Alabama's voter purge program after the Justice Department last month filed a suit similar to Virginia's. When Virginia petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for its stay, Alabama's attorney general signed an amicus brief in support of the request.

Danjuma stressed that the programs disenfranchise eligible voters and that organizations like his will continue to challenge them.

While this is a serious setback for voters in this election, we want to make it clear that we will continue to call out problems in the state's program so that they can be corrected in the future, a- he declared.

State lawmakers respond

Virginia state leaders shared varying responses to the news on Wednesday, reflecting both their support for the SCOTUS decision and their dismay.

Virginia House Speaker Don Scott, D-Portsmouth, who clearly opposed Youngkins' executive order, posted on X that the reprieve granted by SCOTUS does not amount to a victory.

Unfortunately, the governor's plan to block legal voters (from Virginia) temporarily worked. It is a sad day for the Commonwealth and the country, he added.

In a statement, Sen. John McGuire, a member of the body's Privileges and Elections Subcommittee and a candidate for Virginia's 5th Congressional District seat, praised the Youngkin administration for “leading the charge to ensure the security of our elections.”

It’s simple: Non-citizens should not be able to vote, and I’m glad the Supreme Court agrees,” McGuire said.

As chairman of the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections, Sen. Aaron Rouse, Democrat of Virginia Beach, wrote a letter to Elections Commissioner Susan Beals on Sept. 27, requesting more information about how the evictions had occurred. been dealt with under Youngkins' decree of August 7. and whether non-citizens were subject to prosecution for attempting to register.

In his letter, Rouse referenced a Fox News interview Youngkin gave on the day of his executive order, in which he claimed his order would result in the immediate deportation of people and subsequent prosecution.

Rouse asked Beals if clerks refer people to commonwealth attorneys. In his Oct. 8 response to Rouse, Beals did not say whether clerks referred noncitizens to local prosecutors.

More than 1,600 people were removed from the voting rolls under Youngkin's order; groups seek court injunction

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the state say there is no evidence that people were prosecuted for trying to vote illegally.

I've tried to get clear answers from this administration, Rouse said Wednesday. It took the U.S. Department of Justice to file a lawsuit and a federal judge to force the Youngkin administration to release the names of those removed and confirm what we feared: that eligible voters in Virginia were in fact were removed from the lists.

He added that he and his commission members would work to ensure that these disenfranchised voters are informed of the procedures for casting a valid provisional ballot.

What the situation could mean for Virginia voters, on Election Day and beyond

With this upholding, the case will likely continue to attract national attention as the election approaches, highlighting debates over voting rights, citizenship and election integrity.

It could also cause confusion in next Tuesday's vote because it remains unclear what information purged voters would need to submit to register the same day, said Henry Chambers, a constitutional law professor at the University of Michigan Law School. University of Richmond. .

The administration claims there is enough evidence to remove someone from the lists. If that's true, and a registrar has said that this person should not be listed, I'm not sure what kind of information would convince the registrar that the person should be listed and that his provisional ballot should be counted. And it's a delicate question.

Chambers added that it is also unclear what the Supreme Court's decision means for the federal lawsuit filed by the Virginia Coalition for Immigrant Rights and the League of Women Voters of Virginia earlier this month, which alleges that the process used to purge the rolls violates the 90-day quiet period and therefore disenfranchises eligible voters while raising concerns about the transparency and accuracy of the voter registration system of the state.

In theory, the case goes back to the drawing board and you have to treat it as sort of an ordinary case on the merits rather than just an injunction case. But the problem is that the 90-day silent period will end once Election Day ends, Chambers said. The question then becomes: Is the purge program itself illegal in general?

Some state lawmakers have indicated they are ready to tackle the issue and the law behind it.

Should lawmakers amend Virginia's 2006 voter rolls law for clarity?

State Sen. Travis Hackworth, R-Tazewell County, said in a phone interview Wednesday that in the 2025 legislative session he would be open to reviewing anything in the 2006 law that would limit potential confusion during the elections.

Ultimately, if you're an American citizen, we want you to vote, it's your right and your duty to vote, said Hackworth, a Senate Privileges and Elections member who was very disheartened when the lower court ruled to suspend Youngkins' order. .

If any of the 1,600 affected Virginians believe they were removed from the voter rolls in error, Hackworth urged them to vote provisionally by bringing documentation proving their citizenship status and let the local election board determine that.

I think we're maybe making this process a little too complicated, because anyone still has the right, on the day, to say: I've been purged from the voter rolls, I'm a citizen of the United States, and I want to vote. If you have that much conviction to go to the polls and vote provisionally, you will bring something to the table that will support your claim that you are a citizen.

Virginia Mercury editor Samantha Willis contributed to this report

YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.

SUPPORT

What Are The Main Benefits Of Comparing Car Insurance Quotes Online

LOS ANGELES, CA / ACCESSWIRE / June 24, 2020, / Compare-autoinsurance.Org has launched a new blog post that presents the main benefits of comparing multiple car insurance quotes. For more info and free online quotes, please visit https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/the-advantages-of-comparing-prices-with-car-insurance-quotes-online/ The modern society has numerous technological advantages. One important advantage is the speed at which information is sent and received. With the help of the internet, the shopping habits of many persons have drastically changed. The car insurance industry hasn't remained untouched by these changes. On the internet, drivers can compare insurance prices and find out which sellers have the best offers. View photos The advantages of comparing online car insurance quotes are the following: Online quotes can be obtained from anywhere and at any time. Unlike physical insurance agencies, websites don't have a specific schedule and they are available at any time. Drivers that have busy working schedules, can compare quotes from anywhere and at any time, even at midnight. Multiple choices. Almost all insurance providers, no matter if they are well-known brands or just local insurers, have an online presence. Online quotes will allow policyholders the chance to discover multiple insurance companies and check their prices. Drivers are no longer required to get quotes from just a few known insurance companies. Also, local and regional insurers can provide lower insurance rates for the same services. Accurate insurance estimates. Online quotes can only be accurate if the customers provide accurate and real info about their car models and driving history. Lying about past driving incidents can make the price estimates to be lower, but when dealing with an insurance company lying to them is useless. Usually, insurance companies will do research about a potential customer before granting him coverage. Online quotes can be sorted easily. Although drivers are recommended to not choose a policy just based on its price, drivers can easily sort quotes by insurance price. Using brokerage websites will allow drivers to get quotes from multiple insurers, thus making the comparison faster and easier. For additional info, money-saving tips, and free car insurance quotes, visit https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/ Compare-autoinsurance.Org is an online provider of life, home, health, and auto insurance quotes. This website is unique because it does not simply stick to one kind of insurance provider, but brings the clients the best deals from many different online insurance carriers. In this way, clients have access to offers from multiple carriers all in one place: this website. On this site, customers have access to quotes for insurance plans from various agencies, such as local or nationwide agencies, brand names insurance companies, etc. "Online quotes can easily help drivers obtain better car insurance deals. All they have to do is to complete an online form with accurate and real info, then compare prices", said Russell Rabichev, Marketing Director of Internet Marketing Company. CONTACT: Company Name: Internet Marketing CompanyPerson for contact Name: Gurgu CPhone Number: (818) 359-3898Email: [email protected]: https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/ SOURCE: Compare-autoinsurance.Org View source version on accesswire.Com:https://www.Accesswire.Com/595055/What-Are-The-Main-Benefits-Of-Comparing-Car-Insurance-Quotes-Online View photos