Republican Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin is in the spotlight after responding to a lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice challenging an election reform law.

The lawsuit disputes the legality of a state law, legislated under a Democratic governor in 2006, which removes people who identify as noncitizens from the voter registries, a practice Youngkin argues is vital for maintaining citizen-only voting, Fox News reported.

On October 11, a federal lawsuit was filed, accusing the state of Virginia of violating federal election statutes by implementing a law that affects noncitizens.

Originally enacted in 2006, then-governor Tim Kaine, a member of the Democratic Party, signed this law, which involves the process of identifying noncitizens at the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Federal and State Laws at Odds

Under the 2006 legislation, there is a need for individual verification of citizenship when a person identifies themselves as a noncitizen at the DMV.

This process grants a 14-day window for noncitizens to assert their immigration status. Failure to do so leads to their removal from the election lists, although they retain the opportunity to register on the same day for provisional voting.

The provisions of the Virginia law include codes 24.2-439 and 24.2-1019, which address the cancellation of inaccurate voter enrollments and require notification to prosecutorial authorities.

Contrarily, the DOJ cites the Quiet Period Provision from a federal statute that mandates officials finalize election maintenance tasks at least 90 days before any election.

Governor Youngkin has issued an executive directive instructing officials to expunge unverifiable noncitizen registrations. These actions are based on responses indicating noncitizen status on DMV documentation.

Youngkin defends the longstanding nature of the law, noting that the Justice Department approved it when first enacted and both Republican and Democratic administrations have applied it.

Governor Youngkin's Executive Directive

Youngkin clarifies, "This process is not a purge. It is an individualized assessment based on a law ratified in 2006 by Democrat Gov. Tim Kaine."

According to Youngkin, the challenge from the DOJ comes just 25 days before an impending election. He points out that officials have enforced this law uniformly for nearly two decades across both party lines. "In 2006, the Justice Department gave its approval... Now, they question it after years of bipartisan administration," Youngkin remarked.

The defense presented by Youngkin underscores the belief in safeguarding election processes to ensure they remain exclusive to citizens. He stated, "Elections should be decided by citizens, and noncitizens should not appear on voter rolls." He believes that maintaining this principle is crucial for electoral integrity.

Lawsuit Timing Raises Questions

While the DOJ insists that the law conflicts with federal regulations, particularly regarding timing before elections, Youngkin argues that the law prevents noncitizen participation without constituting a systematic voter removal initiative. He suggests that the procedure is designed to maintain the integrity of voter rolls without broadly expelling registrants.

The 2006 Virginia law had initially received the Justice Department's endorsement, marking its constitutionality adequate. It appears the current conflict centers around the interpretation and application timing of these measures rather than the foundational principles themselves.

Youngkin poses a rhetorical question to highlight the core of the debate: "How can we, as a nation, and how can I, as a governor, allow noncitizens to be on the voter roll?" The crux is about enabling citizens' electoral participation while systematically addressing identified noncitizens adequately.

Ensuring Election Integrity

For Youngkin, the law is a matter of common sense protection for election legitimacy. "It's necessary to ensure election processes reflect citizen input," he noted, emphasizing the approach remains fair by allowing for same-day provisional voter registration even for those removed.

As litigation unfolds, the debate will likely further explore federal versus state authority in election oversight and processes for maintaining voter roll authenticity, alongside constitutional assurances in the evolving legal landscape.