At a Glance
- DOJ sues multiple states over election integrity measures, including Virginia, Alabama, and Wisconsin
- Federal judges rule against states’ efforts to remove non-citizens from voter rolls
- Critics argue DOJ’s actions misinterpret law and undermine election integrity
- Biden’s Executive Order 14019 faces scrutiny for potential unlawful interference in state elections
- Concerns raised about partisan motivations behind federal voting initiatives
DOJ’s Legal Offensive Against State Election Laws
The Department of Justice under the Biden administration has launched a series of lawsuits against states implementing election integrity measures. This aggressive legal strategy targets practices in Virginia, Alabama, and Wisconsin, challenging state efforts to maintain accurate voter rolls and ensure secure voting methods. The DOJ’s actions have ignited a fierce debate over the balance between federal oversight and state autonomy in managing elections.
In a particularly contentious case, a federal judge in Virginia ordered the state to reinstate over 1,500 individuals who had self-identified as non-citizens back onto voter rolls, mere days before a crucial election. This ruling has drawn sharp criticism from state officials and election integrity advocates.
State Pushback and Constitutional Concerns
Virginia’s Governor Glenn Youngkin has vehemently opposed the federal court’s decision, highlighting the potential threat to election integrity. Youngkin’s response underscores the growing tension between state and federal authorities over election management.
“Let’s be clear about what just happened: only eleven days before a Presidential election, a federal judge ordered Virginia to reinstate over 1,500 individuals – who self-identified themselves as noncitizens – back onto the voter rolls. Almost all these individuals had previously presented immigration documents confirming their noncitizen status, a fact recently verified by federal authorities,” Youngkin said.
Similar legal battles are unfolding in Alabama and Wisconsin, where the DOJ has challenged state practices aimed at ensuring voter eligibility and ballot security. These lawsuits reflect a broader federal strategy that critics argue misinterprets existing law and undermines state efforts to maintain election integrity.
Executive Order 14019: A Trojan Horse?
Adding fuel to the controversy is President Biden’s Executive Order 14019, which directs federal agencies to promote voter registration and participation. While packaged as an initiative to increase voter access, critics argue it represents an unconstitutional overreach of executive power into state election processes.
“The White House has no authority to register West Virginia voters, ” said West Virginia Secretary of State Mac Warner.
The order’s provisions, including mandating federal employee participation in early voting and poll work, have raised alarms about potential violations of federal laws and the use of government resources for partisan purposes. The lack of transparency surrounding the implementation plans for this order has only intensified suspicions about its true objectives.
The Broader Implications
These federal interventions in state election procedures raise fundamental questions about the balance of power in our federal system. As states struggle to maintain their constitutional authority over elections, the DOJ’s aggressive stance threatens to centralize control in Washington, potentially undermining local efforts to ensure fair and secure elections.
Former Oklahoma elected official and Republican elections activist Cleta Mitchell said, “The federal judge is one of the Biden appointees, so we are not surprised by the ruling. It is erroneous and must be appealed.”
As the 2024 election approaches, these legal battles and federal initiatives could have far-reaching consequences for election integrity and voter confidence. The outcome of these conflicts will likely shape the landscape of American elections for years to come, determining whether states retain their traditional role in election management or if federal oversight will expand dramatically.
