Examining Federal Oversight Regarding Pre-Election Quiet Period Violations

A recent lawsuit was brought against the Virginia government for its actions regarding voter rolls. The lawsuit “came after the US Justice Department sued Virginia and Alabama in the final weeks of the campaign, arguing they violated a 90-day 'quiet period' leading up to Election Day” [1]. The actions taken by the federal government were a direct attempt to put pressure on states like Virginia and others that have attempted to suppress voters discreetly.

The recent ruling was a victory for ensuring that each citizen is guaranteed the right to vote. “US District Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles’ ruling means an estimated 1,600 people will have their voter registration restored in Virginia” [2]. This ruling will ensure that more people who would otherwise have their rights taken away can cast ballots. Furthermore, this does not affect voter security as long as those same voters will “be notified that they are ineligible to vote if they are not US citizens” [3]. This means not only does the ruling under the law ensure that people can vote, but only those who are citizens will be able to cast ballots lawfully like in every other state in the country.

The ruling is not shocking, as similar efforts to purge voters in the most recent elections were also stopped. A similar case in Alabama ended with a federal judge on Wednesday who temporarily blocked Alabama’s voter removal program [4]. This ruling, akin to the decision in Virginia, comes as a major victory in ensuring that citizens can vote. It also inhibited another late attempt to remove voters deemed as non-citizens from voting, violating the 90-day quiet period. 

The decisions are based on a federal law designed to be guidelines for voting registration. The law, titled the National Voter Registration Act, 52 U.S.C. § 20507, lays the groundwork for what states can do in terms of voting registration. The U.S. Department of Justice maintains that the law establishes, “Under Section 8(c)(2), States must complete any program that systematically removes the names of ineligible voters from the official list of eligible voters no later than 90 days before a primary election or general election for federal office. In other words, once an election for federal office is less than 90 days away, processing and removals based on systematic list maintenance must cease” [5]. This means that the recent attempts in both Alabama and Virginia violate federal law, insofar as they take actions to remove substantial numbers of voters within the quiet period of the election. 

Systematic purging within the quiet period can have drastic consequences. The Brennan Center for Justice argues that “these voters may not receive their usual absentee ballot or may show up to vote on Election Day and find that they can’t cast a regular ballot” [6]. This means that these purges being done on a massive scale can result in people being unable to vote due to their registration being taken away without their prior knowledge. Some sources conclude that if these laws are in effect, it would result in a situation where “some eligible citizens who meet all necessary qualifications may find themselves unable to vote in the 2024 general election” [7]. Whether or not states have the power to purge voter rolls, will drastically alter whether states can control voter registration in such a detrimental way.

Yet these laws have already been put to the brink of efficacy, insofar as the Supreme Court decided to allow Virginia to continue. Such that “the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Commonwealth to strike about 1,600 voter registrations in a program that targeted noncitizens but removed several U.S. citizens from the rolls. The Oct. 30 ruling came less than a week out from Election Day” [8]. The ruling which allows the Virginia government to purge voters from the rolls, although it did not impact the election results, enables state governments to sidestep federal laws.

These recent court rulings ultimately affect citizens' inalienable right to vote and whether that right is secure and accessible. The fate of state voter roll purges now rests on future court decisions and potential legislative changes. With recent election outcomes and criticism from former President Trump, who opposes these DOJ lawsuits and appellate court rulings, states unfairly purging voters will likely persist in the coming years, potentially affecting future elections.

Sources:

1. Zoe Tillman, Virginia Voter Purge Blocked by US Judge Ahead of Election (2), (Oct. 25, 2024, 3:15 PM EDT), https://www.bloomberglaw.com/bloomberglawnews/litigation/XBUIR1K4000000?bna_news_filter=litigation#jcite.
2. Id.
3. Id.
4. Hansi Lo Wang, A federal judge has ordered Alabama to stop trying to purge voters before Election Day, (October 16, 2024, 5:34 PM ET), https://www.npr.org/2024/10/16/nx-s1-5154148/alabama-noncitizen-voter-purge-lawsuit.
5. NVRA list maintenance guidance, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division (2024), https://www.justice.gov/crt/nvra-list-maintenance-guidance. 
6. Voter Purges, Brennan Center for Justice, https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/ensure-every-american-can-vote/vote-suppression/voter-purges.
7. Adam Moses, New Laws Risk Purging Eligible Voters in Advance of This Year’s Elections, (April 30, 2024), https://votingrightslab.org/2024/04/30/state-voter-list-maintenance-vs-eligible-voter-purges-in-the-the-2024-election/.
8. Merrill Hart, Virginia allowed to purge 1,600 voter registrations days before election, (November 7, 2024), https://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2024/11/virginia-allowed-to-purge-1600-voter-registrations-days-before-election.