Estimated Time to Read: 5 minutes
In a pivotal case on election integrity and voter qualifications, the U.S. Supreme Court permitted Virginia to proceed with removing noncitizens from its voter rolls. Supported by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) and a coalition of 25 other state Attorneys General, this ruling underscores the growing tension between federal voter regulations and state-controlled measures for safeguarding voter integrity. The decision could have huge implications, both on Texas’s current lawsuit against the Biden administration and the broader battle over citizenship verification in voter rolls.
Why Voter Roll Maintenance Matters for Election Integrity
Ensuring that voter rolls include only eligible citizens is essential for maintaining the integrity and legitimacy of U.S. elections. However, the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) has created friction by restricting last-minute changes to voter rolls, such as the removal of noncitizens, within 90 days of a federal election. Virginia’s recent legal victory, bolstered by an amicus brief from Texas and other states, marks a step toward affirming states’ rights to enforce their voter qualifications and limit federal overreach.
The SCOTUS Decision: Virginia’s Right to Remove Noncitizens
Virginia’s recent Supreme Court victory centers on its process of identifying and removing noncitizens who disclosed their status through the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Here’s a breakdown of key points:
- Federal Law vs. State Authority: Virginia argued that the NVRA’s 90-day “quiet period” was never intended to prevent states from upholding citizenship requirements. With SCOTUS allowing Virginia’s process to proceed, the decision acknowledges that states have a vested interest in enforcing voter eligibility laws without federal interference.
- Amicus Support from Texas and Other States: Led by Kansas, the coalition of states supporting Virginia argued that federal interference could result in noncitizens remaining on voter rolls, leading to potential voting by ineligible individuals. This broad support reinforces states’ commitment to ensuring only eligible citizens participate in elections.
The Kansas Amicus Brief: Arguments for State Sovereignty Over Voter Rolls
The Kansas-led amicus brief underscores that the NVRA’s original intent was to prevent arbitrary purges of eligible citizens, not to mandate that states retain noncitizens on their rolls. Citing constitutional principles, the brief emphasizes:
- The Power to Determine Voter Qualifications: The Constitution explicitly leaves the power to determine voter qualifications to the states. Cases like Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona have previously confirmed this, stating that while Congress can regulate the “how” of elections, the “who” remains under state jurisdiction.
- Avoiding Unintended Consequences of Federal Overreach: The brief warns that forcing states to retain noncitizens could undermine public trust in the electoral process and erode state sovereignty over essential aspects of election integrity.
The list of state’s Attorneys General who signed on to the amicus brief joining Kansas included Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
In a statement, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said,
“he Biden-Harris Administration sued Virginia to force them to put noncitizens back on the voter rolls while the Election is already under way. It is not only a federal crime for noncitizens to vote but for them to even register to vote in the first place. The Biden-Harris Administration’s legal meddling was irresponsible, reckless, and political. States have a constitutional duty to prevent noncitizens from voting. The Supreme Court did the right thing.”
Election Day Implications and Risks
With Election Day fast approaching, the court’s decision allows Virginia to maintain noncitizen restrictions in its voter rolls. Had the injunction remained, Virginia—and potentially other states—would face the risk of noncitizens voting in federal elections, thereby compromising election integrity and violating federal law.
Texas vs. Biden Administration: Ongoing Battles Over Citizenship Verification
In parallel with the Virginia ruling, Texas filed a lawsuit last week against the Biden administration, arguing that recent federal policies threaten state citizenship verification processes. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s lawsuit claims that federal interference impedes states’ abilities to enforce basic voting qualifications.
- Core Argument for Citizenship Verification: Paxton’s suit emphasizes that verifying citizenship is essential to maintaining lawful voter rolls. The state asserts that it should have the freedom to implement such requirements without federal obstacles, preserving election integrity and voter confidence.
- National Significance of Texas’ Legal Action: Texas’ case highlights a broader issue: if states cannot control basic eligibility requirements, federal policies could significantly impact state-managed election procedures, potentially resulting in inconsistencies across jurisdictions.
Implications for Other States and the Future of Election Law
This ruling, alongside Texas’ lawsuit, marks a decisive moment for states advocating for election integrity and the autonomy to enforce voter qualifications. Over 20 states, including Georgia, Ohio, and South Carolina, have aligned with Virginia, each recognizing the importance of controlling their voter rolls without federal mandates that could inadvertently compromise eligibility standards.
SCOTUS Ruling Signals Strong Support for State-Controlled Voter Qualifications
The Supreme Court’s temporary decision supporting Virginia reaffirms the principle that states hold the right to establish and enforce voter eligibility laws. The ongoing Texas-Biden administration lawsuit further illustrates a growing consensus among states that accurate, citizen-only voter rolls are fundamental to fair elections. As states continue to challenge federal restrictions on voter qualifications, the future of election integrity rests on reaffirming this balance between federal oversight and state sovereignty.
Texas Policy Research relies on the support of generous donors across Texas.
If you found this information helpful, please consider supporting our efforts! Thank you!
