Legal analysts have expressed their shock at Wednesday's Supreme Court ruling that backed removing noncitizen voters from the Virginia electoral roll.
The six-judge conservative majority allowed Virginia to continue with a program to remove around 1,600 noncitizen voters. The three liberal judges dissented.
Noncitizens are not entitled to vote in elections, but the immigration status of the 1,600 is disputed.
The Purcell Principle was invoked by a federal court in Alabama on Tuesday, in which it said that its changes to the handling of mail-in ballots should not be implemented until after the 2024 presidential election. It is generally accepted that changes should not come in the days before an election to avoid confusion among election workers.
In response to the Supreme Court decision, former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance commented on X, formerly Twitter: "In a disgraceful departure from the so-called Purcell principle which SCOTUS uses to reject changes too close to elections, they will permit Virginia to continue to remove voters from the rolls. The liberal justices all dissent."
Lawyer and legal commentator Laurence Tribe wrote on X that the Supreme Court decision is "a bad sign."
"It suggests an unchastened Supreme Court poised to help Trump suppress lawful votes on the flimsiest basis. I still think the Roberts Six won't succeed, but it won't be for want of trying," Tribe added.
The Roberts Six refers to the six conservative judges on the Supreme Court, including Chief Justice John Roberts.
Marc E. Elias, a lawyer and founder of the watchdog group Democracy Docket, wrote that the Supreme Court has reinstated "Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin's voter purge program."
"This only affects a small number of people but is a wrongheaded decision in light of clear federal law," Elias said.
Newsweek sought email comment from Youngkin's office and from the Donald Trump presidential campaign on Wednesday.
On its website, Democracy Docket states that it is a "progressive platform for information, analysis and opinion about voting rights, elections and democracy."
Philip Kline, the former Republican attorney general of Kansas, warmly welcomed the decision.
On X, he wrote that the case reveals "the prevailing lack of respect for the Constitution & the role of the Court in the Biden Administration."
David Gelman, an attorney, who declares in his X profile that he is a legal surrogate for Donald Trump, also expressed his support.
"Not only was this the correct decision, this was the only decision! Thank you SCOTUS for doing the right thing in this purely political law," Gelman wrote on X.
The Supreme Court's temporary injunction prevents a federal judge from restoring the 1,600 voters to the electoral roll before election day.
U.S. District Judge Patricia Giles, a President Joe Biden appointee, ruled on Friday that the removal of the 1,600 violated federal law, as it took place during a 90-day "quiet period" before a presidential election.
The quiet period is mandated to avoid the risk of mistakenly removing legitimate voters just before the election.
On Sunday, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals backed Judge Giles' initial decision, finding that Virginia's data-matching efforts did not sufficiently prove that those removed were noncitizens.
The state's plan marked individuals for removal if they either checked a box on a Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) form indicating they are not citizens or left that box blank. State officials said that any flagged voter received a notice and had two weeks to contest the disqualification.
Youngkin posted on X: "We are pleased by the Supreme Court's order today. This is a victory for common sense and election fairness." He added: "Clean voter rolls are one important part of a comprehensive approach we are taking to ensure the fairness of our elections."
English (US) ·