'Major threat to the survival of our democracy': Experts rip SCOTUS for 11th hour voter purge
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled in favor of a Republican governor's attempt to purge his state's voter rolls just days before the November 5 election. Legal experts, elected officials and journalists are now accusing SCOTUS of rapidly eroding democracy.
CNN reported that in the Court's 6-3 decision — in which all six Republican appointees were in the majority and all three Democratic appointees dissented — Virginia Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin is now allowed to move forward with his efforts to remove roughly 1,600 suspected non-citizens from the commonwealth's voter rolls. But as NPR reported earlier this week, some voters included in the purge are actually native-born U.S. citizens.
"I was born in Brooklyn, N.Y. — I'm a citizen," Lynchburg, Virginia resident Nadra Wilson told the network, even showing her U.S. passport as proof. Wilson received a letter notifying her that her voter registration was at risk of being canceled unless she proved her citizenship.
READ MORE: RNC cries 'partisan voter suppression' in push for Democratic tactic GOP once criticized
Because Virginia has same-day voter registration, any voter who was purged is able to renew their registration, provided they do so in-person at their designated polling place. But some legal experts are more worried about the precedent SCOTUS' decision will set, as it ignores a federal statute barring states from making major changes to the voting process less than 90 days before an election. On X (formerly Twitter), Slate legal commentator Mark Joseph Stern wrote that Youngkin's purge "has targeted qualified citizens."
"The Supreme Court's decision is extremely worrisome because the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 *explicitly forbids* systematic purges of voter rolls shortly before an election," Stern tweeted. "It now looks like the conservative supermajority will let states ignore that prohibition."
Former Chicago Tribune editor Mark Jacob opined that the decision spoke to the immense power the Supreme Court has, calling it "a major threat to the survival of our democracy." He added: "The presidential immunity ruling was one example of the danger it poses. This is another."
Virginia Democratic House of Delegates member Alfonso Lopez called the decision "insane" and tweeted that the "90-day requirement is pretty clear," but observed that "Trump's Supreme Cult doesn't really care." And Georgia State University College of Law professor Anthony Michael Kreis called the ruling "an absolute disgrace," noting that the purge "will knowingly sweep up some eligible voters in the mix."
READ MORE: The Purge is real: Inside the GOP's 2024 playbook to disenfranchise voters
"It's safe to assume that if any part of this election comes down to a court fight, the Supreme Court will side with Trump and help him steal the election," tweeted Alejandra Caraballo, who is a clinical instructor at the Harvard Law School Cyberlaw Clinic.
Election attorney Marc Elias, who regularly represents the Democratic National Committee in post-election litigation, also blasted the Court's ruling in favor of the Virginia voter purge. He acknowledged that while it "only affects a small number of people," it was still "a wrongheaded decision in light of clear federal law."
Comedian George Wallace was more blunt in his assessment, lamenting that the "Supreme Court a—hole majority just gave a thumbs up to voter purges DURING a damn election."
"Remember, y'all ain't just voting about the next 4 years," he wrote. "You're voting on the next 50."
READ MORE: With millions now casting ballots, democracy watchdogs stress voter protection
