A Federal Law Banned Late Voter Roll Purges. Republicans Are Pushing to Reinterpret It
A federal law bans late voter – Republican lawmakers are advocating for a reinterpretation of a long-standing federal law that prohibits mass removal of eligible voters from registration rolls close to an election. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 established this protection, ensuring states have time to correct errors before casting ballots. Now, the Supreme Court is set to examine this provision through a case from Arizona, as the upcoming fall midterm elections approach.
The 90-Day Quiet Period
Under the NVRA, election officials are required to complete any systematic removal of ineligible voters 90 days prior to Election Day in federal races. This applies to 44 states, plus Washington, D.C. The law was designed to give voters a window to address discrepancies, such as incorrect information or temporary status changes, without fear of being stripped of their right to vote at the last minute.
However, as the 2024 midterms near, legal analysts are scrutinizing how courts will uphold the quiet period. The period, beginning on August 5, allows states to continue purging voter rolls for specific reasons—like a person requesting removal, death, or a felony conviction—while preventing broader, last-minute sweeps targeting noncitizens.
Supreme Court’s Involvement
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority recently made a brief, unexplained ruling that permitted a Virginia voter removal program to proceed during the quiet period. This decision, part of the so-called “shadow docket,” raised concerns among voting rights advocates. The shadow docket is known for expedited rulings, often issued without full explanation, which can bypass traditional judicial review processes.
Legal experts argue this ruling creates uncertainty about the law’s enforceability. “There’s no doubt in my mind that litigators and voting rights advocates are testing the limits of the NVRA’s quiet period protection,” says Maureen Edobor, an assistant law professor at Washington and Lee University. The court’s decision to allow Virginia’s program during the 90-day window has set a precedent, potentially enabling similar actions in other states.
Political Motives and Legal Arguments
The push to reinterpret the NVRA aligns with broader efforts by the Trump administration and Republican leaders to challenge voter eligibility. They have promoted the narrative of widespread noncitizen fraud, despite state audits showing such instances are exceedingly rare. This rhetoric has been used to justify stricter scrutiny of voter rolls, particularly in the weeks leading up to an election.
In several ongoing cases, Republican state officials have argued that the quiet period should be expanded or relaxed. For instance, during the 2024 quiet period, Virginia’s Republican governor, Glenn Youngkin, issued an executive order requiring “daily updates” to voter rolls. This measure aimed to remove individuals who could not verify U.S. citizenship, even if they were otherwise qualified to vote. The state’s program led to the accidental removal of eligible voters, including some who had no issue with their registration status.
Despite these actions, federal judges appointed by former Presidents Obama and Biden found that Virginia likely violated the NVRA by targeting noncitizens too late in the process. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority, however, allowed the program to continue without further analysis. This inconsistency has sparked debate about the judiciary’s role in safeguarding voting rights.
Impact of the Shadow Docket
The shadow docket has become a focal point in this legal battle. Dan Tokaji, dean of the University of Wisconsin Law School, explains that these emergency orders enable the Supreme Court to intervene quickly, often without the same level of scrutiny as regular rulings. “It’s worrisome because it suggests there may not be a remedy if a state unlawfully purges voters during the quiet period,” he says. The lack of detailed reasoning in the Virginia case has left legal scholars questioning the court’s willingness to enforce the NVRA’s protections.
The case, known as
RNC v. Mi Familia Vota
, also involves Arizona’s requirement for U.S. citizenship documents during voter registration. While the Arizona case may not directly address the NVRA’s quiet period, it could influence how the Supreme Court interprets similar provisions in other states. The decision is expected next year, but its implications will be felt in the months leading up to the midterms.
Recent Developments and Remaining Concerns
Virginia’s voter purge dispute reached a resolution this year. The state’s current Democratic governor, Abigail Spanberger, issued an executive order that aligned with the NVRA’s 90-day rule, ensuring removal programs are completed well in advance of Election Day. This compromise came after months of legal battles, but Tokaji notes the 2024 ruling still leaves open questions about the court’s approach to future cases.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration has been actively collecting voter-roll data from states to cross-check against a national eligibility database. Critics argue this practice could lead to overzealous purges, especially if states are given more leeway to remove voters during the quiet period. The administration’s strategy mirrors its efforts to bolster claims of election fraud, even as evidence of such occurrences remains scarce.
Legal scholars warn that the Supreme Court’s recent actions could embolden states to push the boundaries of the NVRA. The law’s original intent—to protect voters from last-minute disruptions—now faces scrutiny in a political climate where questions of eligibility are often framed as threats to electoral integrity. The upcoming Arizona case may determine whether this protection is preserved or weakened, potentially reshaping how states manage voter rolls in the lead-up to future elections.
As the quiet period begins, the stakes for eligible voters have never been higher. The NVRA’s 90-day rule was meant to ensure a fair and equitable process, but its interpretation now hinges on the Supreme Court’s willingness to uphold its provisions. With the midterms just weeks away, the outcome of this legal dispute could have lasting effects on voting access and the integrity of the electoral system.
