The Biden-Harris leadership and Democratic attorneys appear to be coercing together to undermine the legitimacy of our elections. In the face of this invasion, does Americans ‘ election right be sustained?
If an Oct. 30 decision is any indicator, it appears the Supreme Court at least may become willing to step into the breach in security of our nation — a cheerful portent amid an expected burst of 2024 election-related dispute.  ,
In a 6-3 decision, with the court’s three most communist judges dissenting, the judge issued an order striking down a preliminary injunction backed by the Biden-Harris Justice Department thus protecting Virginia’s effort to remove more than 1, 500 self-identified noncitizens from the vote floats. In doing so, the court shot a Court across the arrow while working to defend the non-Americans ‘ rights to interfere with our elections and the federal judges who had backed the president’s work.
The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 ( NVRA ) and its rules for removing voters from the rolls are at issue in the case, about which lower courts have issued contradictory opinions.
Colloquially known as the” Motor Voter Act”, the bill aimed to increase the number of “eligible citizens” who register to vote in federal elections, while “protect]ing ] the integrity of the electoral process” and “ensur]ing ] that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained”.
Section 7 of the NVRA specifies demands for cleaning the vote rolls. It stipulates that authorities does reduce registrants from eligible voter lists if they request to be removed, been convicted of a crime, close up mentally incapacitated, or change home. Authorities are required to maintain a so-called calm interval within 90 days of national elections, which would narrow these removal efforts. During this time, officials may not apply” systematic” voting treatment plans, nor may they remove from the rolls those who change their home.
The justification for the provision is that it prevents states from removing voters in large numbers based on allegedly crude computerized identification-matching exercises that run the risk of incorrectly removing eligible voters from the rolls with insufficient time to correct errors before elections.
Enter Virginia’s initiative to remove noncitizens from the voter rolls, which was implemented within the three months leading up to Nov. 5. Pursuant to state law, the commonwealth’s Department of Motor Vehicles sends a monthly list of all those self-identifying as noncitizens in transactions with the agency to Virginia’s Department of Elections.  ,
The department transmits such information to relevant local registrars, who conduct a “manual, person-by-person verification” to confirm individuals identified by the state’s DMV as noncitizens match names residing on the voter rolls, according to court filings. The registrars then send a final cancellation notice to the contacted individuals via mail, giving them a couple of weeks to confirm their citizenship and keep their eligible voter status.  ,
The state’s voter registration procedures serve as a fail-safe, allowing anyone who was removed from the rolls to reregister and cast ballot until Election Day, the state claims.
In August, Republican Gov. The commonwealth’s DMV is mandated by an executive order, which is issued by Glenn Youngkin, to increase the cadence of information-sharing with its elections department by providing a daily list of those identifying as noncitizens. Additionally, it “ad hoc review” of DMV records over the previous year identified potential noncitizens who indicated they were Americans in conversations with the agency but had presented conflicting legal presence documentation.  ,
The Biden-Harris Justice Department and other like-minded private plaintiffs criticized Virginia for carrying out these actions in accordance with a 2006 law precleared by the Justice Department, which had previously been carried out without issue, including within 90 days of prior elections. They filed separate suits contending Virginia’s program violated the NVRA’s quiet period provision.
A trial judge from the Eastern District of Virginia issued a preliminary injunction to stop Virginia’s efforts after combining the cases into one. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ‘ three-judge panel largely supported the decision. Just days before Nov. 5, the Commonwealth would have to return the noncitizens to the rolls, a population that could not cast ballots without committing a crime.
The Arguments
So Virginia filed a lawsuit with the Supreme Court, where the Commonwealth presented three particularly compelling arguments for why its attempts to remove noncitizens from the rolls were legal and the court should stay the injunction.
The first argument was that noncitizens are exempt from the relevant NVRA provisions. The NVRA’s voter removal regulations, including during the so-called quiet period, govern “eligible applicants” who become “registrants”. But noncitizens ‘ registrations, the state argued, “were void ab initio” — illegitimate and therefore invalid from the start.
” If a person cannot become a’ registrant’ because he is not and cannot be an’ eligible applicant,’ then he cannot become a ‘ voter,'” the state argued.  ,” And if the person is not a ‘ voter,’ eligible or otherwise, then he is not protected under the Quiet Period Provision”.
Conversely, Virginia suggested that by the Biden-Harris administration’s logic, if noncitizens — a class of individuals never referenced in the relevant section of the NVRA — are protected under the quiet period provision, then this implies they are “registrants”. And since “registrants” can only be removed from the rolls on prescribed grounds such as death or criminal conviction,” then the NVRA]would ] bar] ] States from removing noncitizens from its rolls at any time“.
The commonwealth thought this was absurd.
It contended that” the NVRA does not prohibit the removal from the voter rolls of persons, such as noncitizens and minors, who were never’ eligible applicant]s ] ‘ and thus could not become’ registrant]s ]’ or’ voters’ in the first place”.
The phrase “does not prohibit removing from the rolls persons who never could have been registered in the first place” was added to the rest of the article. Therefore, Virginia concluded,” States are free to systematically remove noncitizens, as well as minors and fictitious persons, at any time, including within 90 days of an election”.
Virginia’s second key argument was that its process for removing noncitizens was not systematic but rather individualized. According to the commonwealth, the process depends on an individual confirming his noncitzenship, a registrar manually matching that individual to the voter rolls, and a registrar speaking directly with the individual before removing him.
The commonwealth argued that” the use of electronic tools in a larger process does not automatically make the process’synthetic,’ especially where, as here, the process involved several layers of individualized review and contact with each person,” while the lower courts emphasized that comparisons of electronic databases showed that Virginia’s efforts were” systematic.”
” Indeed, if merely using a computerized database is enough to render a process ‘ systematic,’ then nearly every modern process would qualify”, Old Dominion quipped.
Third, Virginia asserted that the feds ‘ campaign against its voter-removal process is an unconstitutional encroachment.  ,
The commonwealth argued, citing the 2013 Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council case, that the” Electoral Clause empowers Congress to regulate how federal elections are held, but not who may vote in them. ” [F]orcing States to keep noncitizens on their voter rolls would cross the line into regulating “who” may vote in federal elections.”
We Need Answers
Although the Supreme Court’s decision to stay Virginia’s preliminary injunction may support these arguments, the court did not consider the case’s merits or even its justification for granting the stay.
Consequently, states, Virginia argued, remain “unaware of when, or whether, they can remove noncitizens from the voter rolls. They need to know with certainty whether they can remove noncitizens at any point, only outside of the Quiet Period, or never” . ,
Election authorities need answers, and hopefully the court will eventually respond to the Virginia case. In cases involving virtually every aspect of the 2024 election, similar questions are likely to abound.
In 2020, it chose to punt on the most critical such case — to our great detriment. Let’s hope that the court’s decision in the Virginia case shows that it is resolute to resolve these pressing issues this time.
Ben Weingarten is editor at large for RealClearInvestigations. He is a senior contributor to The Federalist, columnist at Newsweek, and a contributor to the New York Post and Epoch Times, among other publications. Subscribe to his newsletter at weingarten. substack .com, and follow him on Twitter: @bhweingarten.
