Latest Breaking News

onenote

(44,651 posts)

18. The case turned the interpretation and application of a federal law governing removal ofnames from a state's voter rolls

Reply to JohnSJ (Reply #4)

Wed Oct 30, 2024, 10:05 AM

Oct 30

Under this federal law, a state "shall complete, not later than 90 days prior to the date of a primary or general election for Federal office, any program the purpose of which is to systematically remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters."

I'm going to assume that you don't actually have a problem with the federal government passing a law to protect voters in federal elections from being removed from voter rolls so close to the election date that they are likely not to have time to challenge or correct the removal decision.

I think the court's issuing a stay of the lower court rulings finding that Virginia violated this provision is indefensible, but there is no question that the court was properly brought into this case which involved the application and interpretation of a federal law governing federal elections.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

77 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court clears way for Virginia to remove 1,600 alleged noncitizens from voter rolls [View all] BumRushDaShow Oct 30 OP

They are going to cheat for him. BlueKota Oct 30 #1

"I just hope our side has a plan to counteract their unconstitutional rulings." BumRushDaShow Oct 30 #2

I realize we have to do everything we can to get BlueKota Oct 30 #8

The SCOTUS generally upholds "states rights" which is a provision in the Constitution BumRushDaShow Oct 30 #15

So they were purged on day 90? LeftInTX Oct 30 #41

SCOTUSBlog has a better description of what was going on - BumRushDaShow Oct 30 #46

umm.Thanks for post. riversedge Oct 30 #64

Can valid voters appeal their removal? no_hypocrisy Oct 30 #3

Sort of MissMillie Oct 30 #27

Yes they can thatdemguy Oct 30 #35

In other words they need to re-register to vote on Election Day FakeNoose Oct 30 #65

WTF. What happened to States control elections. We are 6 days away from the general election, and the thugs on the JohnSJ Oct 30 #4

The case turned the interpretation and application of a federal law governing removal ofnames from a state's voter rolls onenote Oct 30 #18

I think you are giving this court the benefit of doubt. I will be JohnSJ Oct 30 #32

I said the Supreme Court's decision was indefensible. In what universe is that giving them the benefit of the doubt? onenote Oct 30 #44

Yes I did read it onenote, perhaps incorrectly, but based on the view that the court was properly brought into the case JohnSJ Oct 30 #47

They haven't "heard" the case yet. They've decided an emergency motion. onenote Oct 30 #49

Thanks. I don't think there is anyway the case will be heard before the election, and the only remedy for those purged JohnSJ Oct 30 #52

Correct. Which is one of several reasons it is an indefensible order. onenote Oct 30 #57

Thanks. Now I have a complete picture. JohnSJ Oct 30 #69

In many cases, the people being potentially removed indicated themselves they were not citizens MichMan Oct 30 #58

Then it isn't as straightforward as some of the OPs suggest. JohnSJ Oct 30 #70

It is no longer a stay, they are allowing the purge to continue. JohnSJ Oct 30 #39

It is a stay of the injunction ordered by the lower courts. onenote Oct 30 #45

Thanks. Appreciate the edification. JohnSJ Oct 30 #48

Not just men BlueKota Oct 30 #34

true, though her reasoning I think might be different than the men on that court. JohnSJ Oct 30 #38

Supreme Court allows Virginia to resume its purge of voter registrations mahatmakanejeeves Oct 30 #5

While this isn't positive ScratchCat Oct 30 #6

So what's to stop them from doing 50K more tomorrow? IrishAfricanAmerican Oct 30 #42

Why didn't they do 50,000 before the ruling? onenote Oct 30 #50

Maybe they were testing the fences? IrishAfricanAmerican Oct 30 #68

These people weren't voting anyway at least the ones who stayed they couldn't vote underpants Oct 30 #60

It is time now to ignore the extreme six's illegal rulings. Clouds Passing Oct 30 #7

Who is going to ignore this ruling? The Virginia authorities that requested the ruling? onenote Oct 30 #51

I know they did, but I'm just sayin' I'm tired of their unlawful rulings. Clouds Passing Oct 30 #73

The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority. Its three liberal justices dissented from Wednesday's action. Dumpy Oct 30 #9

The only one old enough to consider retiring would be Thomas. oldsoftie Oct 30 #55

Expected FredGarvin Oct 30 #10

I don't trust they will allow a legitimate Harris win BlueKota Oct 30 #12

They have a major incentive to let Trump win Danascot Oct 30 #67

The order says all so called non citizens. So bluestarone Oct 30 #11

Good point. Maybe the order is more limited than the headline? nt wiggs Oct 30 #17

I guess IF i were from there and knew i was removed bluestarone Oct 30 #19

What can we do??? HagathaCrispy Oct 30 #13

Take a little solace in knowing MissMillie Oct 30 #25

These fuckers WILL install TFG bluestarone Oct 30 #14

I do to. BlueKota Oct 30 #20

Well, i still have some faith in our DU members that insist that it would be hard for THIS SC, IF bluestarone Oct 30 #21

There will be civil war if that happens HagathaCrispy Oct 30 #16

No. PSPS Oct 30 #56

What's the solution then BlueKota Oct 30 #72

Link to the Order: Ramsey Barner Oct 30 #22

Oh there is discussion alright. Just not with the people they are supposed to be discussing. It's called the fix. Hassin Bin Sober Oct 30 #40

harris is going to win et tu Oct 30 #23

I also think Harris will win. BlueKota Oct 30 #26

60 cases were heard following the last election. 59 were wins for the Dems. It was the same court we have now PortTack Oct 30 #33

Was Barrett involved in rejecting Trumps objections BlueKota Oct 30 #36

National Voter Registration Act SpankMe Oct 30 #24

roughly 2/3 of Alabama's illegal purge MissMillie Oct 30 #28

The Supreme Court MAY need protection! 3825-87867 Oct 30 #29

Why do they have to be removed now, today? LittleGirl Oct 30 #30

So, instead of determining if they are ineligible now, it would be better to let them vote and then throw them in jail ? MichMan Oct 30 #59

So out of 144ish million voters LittleGirl Oct 30 #71

Please explain how the checks and balances worked in the case I linked to? MichMan Oct 30 #75

Virginia has same day voter registration idahoblue Oct 30 #31

I was BRUTALLY HARASSED on another thread for asking the same questions asked here!!!! HagathaCrispy Oct 30 #37

You don't say! jfz9580m Oct 31 #77

SCOTUS actively supporting MAGA HereForTheParty Oct 30 #43

Fascist Shits Through And Through... MayReasonRule Oct 30 #53

Mark Elias can't fix this. gab13by13 Oct 30 #54

How does this affect us? Groundhawg Oct 30 #61

When the house reconvenes 1 Nov Farmer-Rick Oct 30 #62

@JoyceWhiteVance In a disgraceful departure from the so-called Purcell principle which SCOTUS uses to reject changes riversedge Oct 30 #63

Question: Will we be able to learn the detailed results of this purging? Gender, Party, precincts, ethnicity, Jit423 Oct 30 #66

It was youngkin demagogue to get attention with no basis by executive order to illegally purge 1600 Virgina voters. JohnSJ Oct 30 #74

If virginia has same day voter registration i dont see jow this is the biggest deal in practice ColinC Oct 30 #76