A federal judge ordered Virginia to halt its recent removal of potential non-citizens from voter rolls, a decision set to reinstate voting rights for around 1,600 residents just before the Nov. 5 election.
U.S. District Judge Patricia Giles issued a preliminary injunction on Friday, finding that the recent voter roll purges were conducted in a “systematic” way, violating the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).
The NVRA mandates a 90-day “quiet period” prior to federal elections, during which states are prohibited from implementing large-scale voter list maintenance efforts.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) recently filed a lawsuit against Virginia, arguing the removals were too close to the upcoming election and put eligible voters at risk of being wrongly removed without sufficient notice or time to appeal.
The lawsuit contends that systematic voter roll maintenance within the 90-day period before an election violates federal law.
DOJ officials noted concerns that the purges could prevent legitimate voters from casting ballots and may have left individuals without proper notification to remedy potential errors.
The injunction also poses a legal challenge for Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin, who signed an executive order in August authorizing “daily” updates to state voter rolls.
This order permitted Virginia to cross-check registered voters against a Department of Motor Vehicles list of non-citizens, then notify those flagged as non-citizens that their registration would be canceled if they did not verify their citizenship within 14 days.
Youngkin defended the policy as lawful, citing a 2006 precedent allowing states to regularly update voter rolls and remove non-citizens.
He has argued that Virginia’s process is “individualized” rather than systematic, stating it was designed to confirm voter eligibility without indiscriminate removals.
According to Fox News, Youngkin explained that the state used an individualized process by directly notifying potential non-citizens, giving them the opportunity to verify their status before any removal action.
He criticized the timing of the injunction, suggesting that a court ruling so close to a federal election could undermine the state’s authority in maintaining voter roll integrity.
However, critics argue that the process risked disenfranchising eligible voters based on potentially inaccurate DMV data and could have disproportionately impacted certain communities.
As the court case unfolds, the ruling signals heightened scrutiny on how states handle voter roll maintenance, especially leading up to federal elections.
Federal authorities and advocates have increasingly voiced concerns that improper or overly broad purges can disenfranchise eligible voters, potentially affecting election outcomes.
