The U.S. Supreme Court recently allowed Virginia’s election commission to resume a voter purge program that removed 1,600 names from the voter rolls, which Virginia claims targets non-citizens. The 6-3 decision reversed two lower court rulings that had previously blocked the program due to potential illegality.
The program has drawn widespread criticism from voting rights advocates who argue it could disenfranchise legitimate voters. All three liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—voted against the decision.
Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin, an ally of former President Trump, championed this program and signed it into law. He pursued appeals up to the Supreme Court following lower court decisions that questioned the program’s legality. Youngkin has been a vocal proponent of more restrictive voting measures, positioning this program as a way to address alleged non-citizen voting despite challenges based on voting rights protections.
The Supreme Court’s ruling was issued in a brief, one-page order that provided no explanation for the decision, which is common but leaves the legal reasoning behind the ruling unclear.
Virginia’s Voter Purge Program Resumes After Supreme Court Decision, Raising Concerns About Voter Disenfranchisement
The state of Virginia argued that those removed from the voter rolls did not present sufficient proof of citizenship when registering through the Department of Motor Vehicles. However, voting rights advocates counter that the purge violates the National Voter Registration Act by restricting voter roll adjustments too close to Election Day, risking valid voter disenfranchisement.
This ruling underscores the ideological divide within the Court, with conservative justices aligning to support the program, a decision that aligns with the GOP’s ongoing focus on voting restrictions.
Justices Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito—long criticized for voting rights rollbacks—joined in the majority vote, continuing a pattern of decisions seen by critics as undermining voting protections, especially for vulnerable communities.
For Republicans, this decision marks a strategic win in Virginia, a swing state where tight races are common. The case reflects broader GOP efforts to heighten scrutiny of voter eligibility, often invoking concerns over noncitizen voting as justification.
This ruling not only supports Youngkin’s policies but also bolsters the Trump-aligned narrative that restrictive voting laws are needed, despite evidence showing that incidents of noncitizen voting are rare. Given Virginia’s history of close elections, even the removal of a few voters could be significant in upcoming elections.
