Biden Judge forces VA to put 1600 self attested non citizens back on the voter rolls

[RedFan]

I would hope Virginia ignores the order. It isn't legal. Maybe the judge can be brought up for review when their order is contrary to election law.

The Order was 100% legal. The National Voter Registration Act forbids states from doing what Virginia did within 90 days of a federal election. Dumb law? Maybe. But that wasn't the Judge's call. Your beef is with Congress, not with a Judge who enforces Congressiomal statutes as written.

 

[Bluemind]

The Order was 100% legal. The National Voter Registration Act forbids states from doing what Virginia did within 90 days of a federal election. Dumb law? Maybe. But that wasn't the Judge's call. Your beef is with Congress, not with a Judge who enforces Congressiomal statutes as written.

The beef is with the judge. Who ignored the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 and section 611 which criminalizes allowing non-citizen voting in federal elections. Punishment can include up to a year in jail.

I think Virginia has every right to protect our rlections from non-citizens.

 

[RedFan]

The beef is with the judge. Who ignored the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 and section 611 which criminalizes allowing non-citizen voting in federal elections. Punishment can include up to a year in jail.

I think Virginia has every right to protect our rlections from non-citizens.

Section 611 of that statute was not argued by the State. And for good reason. Everyone understands that it is a crime for non-citizens to vote - and the Judge ordered the State to write to each of the purged registrants telling them that.

 

[Bluemind]

Section 611 of that statute was not argued by the State. And for good reason. Everyone understands that it is a crime for non-citizens to vote - and the Judge ordered the State to write to each of the purged registrants telling them that.

Good. Then 1600 non-citizens can't be put on the rolls.

Good news indeed. Thanks.

 

[RedFan]

Good. Then 1600 non-citizens can't be put on the rolls.

Good news indeed. Thanks.

That's not so. Those 1600, SOME (not all) of whom are non-citizens, are back on the rolls right now. And if they have the temerity to show up to vote when they aren't citizens, they can be prosecuted.

 

[Bluemind]

That's not so. Those 1600, SOME (not all) of whom are non-citizens, are back on the rolls right now. And if they have the temerity to show up to vote when they aren't citizens, they can be prosecuted.

Where is the proof Virginia allowed a judge to make them comply with an illegal order and break the law and do that?

 

[RedFan]

Where is the proof Virginia allowed a judge to make them comply with an illegal order and break the law and do that?

Virginia didn't allow the Judge to do it. The United States Congress, which passed the NVRA in 1993, did that. And Virginia has not been forced to "break the law." Virginia has been forced to comply with the law. Silly law? Maybe. But the Judge doesn't get to refuse enforcement because she thinks it's a silly law.

 

[Bluemind]

Virginia didn't allow the Judge to do it. The United States Congress, which passed the NVRA in 1993, did that. And Virginia has not been forced to "break the law." Virginia has been forced to comply with the law. Silly law? Maybe. But the Judge doesn't get to refuse enforcement because she thinks it's a silly law.

A 1996 law three years later forbid that judge from making her decision.

 

[RedFan]

A 1996 law three years later forbid that judge from making her decision.

Show me that one, please. And show me where Virginia argued it to the Judge.

 

[Bluemind]

Show me that one, please. And show me where Virginia argued it to the Judge.

I already gave you the information. The IIRAIRA.

Also, today the U.S Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Virginia may continue to purge ineligible voters from the rolls.

 

[RedFan]

I already gave you the information. The IIRAIRA.

Also, today the U.S Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Virginia may continue to purge ineligible voters from the rolls.

Yup, I saw the stay from SCOTUS. Next we will see what the Fourth Circuit does with the case.

I honesty don't see where the IIRAIRA forbids judicial enforcement of the NVRA. Do you?

 

[lforrest]

Political bias in the judiciary used to be impeachable. It is a big problem when a judge's ruling can be predicted based on who appointed them. What a messed up system, which appoints activist judges while also requiring an appearance of neutrality for decorum.

I'm not sure how it could be fixed though. Someone must appoint them, and all things are politicized.

 

[Bluemind]

Yup, I saw the stay from SCOTUS. Next we will see what the Fourth Circuit does with the case.

I honesty don't see where the IIRAIRA forbids judicial enforcement of the NVRA. Do you?

The SCOTUS did.
611 section is something to consider also I think.

 

[Bluemind]

Political bias in the judiciary used to be impeachable. It is a big problem when a judge's ruling can be predicted based on who appointed them. What a messed up system, which appoints activist judges while also requiring an appearance of neutrality for decorum.

I'm not sure how it could be fixed though. Someone must appoint them, and all things are politicized.

President Trump recommended three candidates to the Supreme bench. He didn't appoint them of his own accord.

One third of the nine member panel does not indicate a majority of those Justice's are Trump appointees, as the Democrats sometimes claim.

 

[Scott Downey]

The SCOTUS did.
611 section is something to consider also I think.

I think it's a mute point, the SCOTUS says go ahead, so it is done.

 

[Bluemind]

I think it's a mute point, the SCOTUS says go ahead, so it is done.

Amen. The right decision.

 

[Bob]

So much to unpack here . . .

First, to attribute to Congress a purpose to maximize voter fraud is ridiculous. If it "seems [to you] that this is the very purpose of the statute," kindly point out a clause or two from which you divine this sinister Congressional intent.

Second, I see no "circular, tortured logic" in the Eleventh Circuit's opinion. If you do, show us where. I can send you the briefs, and a transript of the oral argument, if you'd like.

Third, I have never invoked "I was only following orders" as a basis for enforcing the statute -- unless your word "orders" includes the oath that federal judges take to enforce federal statutes. The NVRA says what it says.

Fourth, you ask "By what Constitutional authority does the ‘National Voter Registration Act’ assert the power to dictate to States when they may remove people ineligible to vote?" That's an easy one. Article I, Section 4, Clause 1. Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona has already put that issue to bed, when it held that the NVRA preempted state law documentary proof-of-citizenship requirements.

Lastly, you ask "And what purpose - other than voter fraud - does it serve to keep people ineligible to vote on registration lists?" The 90-day time limit on systematic purging of voter rolls was the balance Congress struck between eliminating ineligible voters and risking striking eligible voters. To quote Justice Alito's majority opinion in another NVRA case, Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, 584 U. S. 756, 779 (2018), "this case presents a question of statutory interpretation, not a question of policy. We have no authority to second-guess Congress."

If you want to call that hiding behind the law, take it up with Alito.

Thank you for your thoughtful posts.

So: what do you think of the Supreme Court deciding in favor of Virginia?

We do not know the arguments Virginia offered, nor the reasoning for the SCOTUS decision. Could it be they found the 90-day part of the law unconstitutional?

Blessings.

 

[RedFan]

The SCOTUS did.
611 section is something to consider also I think.

Do you see something in the SCOTUS Order that I don't?

I should point out that the litigants themselves didn't raise any argument from the IIRAIRA. So I don't know why the District Court should even consider it.

 

[RedFan]

Thank you for your thoughtful posts.

So: what do you think of the Supreme Court deciding in favor of Virginia?

We do not know the arguments Virginia offered, nor the reasoning for the SCOTUS decision. Could it be they found the 90-day part of the law unconstitutional?

Blessings.

The Supreme Court didn't decide in favor of Virginia. It simply stayed the effectiveness of the District Court's Order until the Fourth Circuit could weigh in on the merits. Here is the Supreme Court's Order.

 

[Bluemind]

Do you see something in the SCOTUS Order that I don't?

I should point out that the litigants themselves didn't raise any argument from the IIRAIRA. So I don't know why the District Court should even consider it.

It isn't an issue anymore since the SCOTUS ruled to continue removal of non-citizens names from the VA rolls.

Good on them for setting this precedent. We have to at least try to protect our rights and the vote in some way.