Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares, a Republican, argued in a petition to the high court that the lower court’s “election-eve injunction,” which was issued Friday and upheld by the state court, appeal from the 4th Circuit, violated Virginia law and “common sense.” .”

The lower court sided with the Justice Department and liberal voting rights groups in ordering Virginia election officials on Friday, less than two weeks before the 2024 election, to stop a redistricting process Department of Motor Vehicles data with voter registration lists. to verify the citizenship status of voters.

The court also ordered Virginia election officials to reinstate anyone it had removed as part of that process during the 90-day period before the election, a period that federal law designates as a “quiet period » during which states do not have the right to systematically remove people from their electoral rolls. to prevent accidental disregistration of eligible voters.

Miyares said Virginia would, as a result of this order, be forced to reinstate more than 1,600 “self-identified non-citizens” on its voter registration list, which Miyares said would cause confusion among officials campaigners who have been leading efforts to deport non-citizens for years.

“The injunction, which bars enforcement of a law in effect since the Justice Department pre-approved it in 2006, will also irreparably harm Virginia’s sovereignty, confuse its voters, overburden its electoral apparatus and its administrators, and will probably give non-citizens pause. they are allowed to vote, a criminal offense that will nullify the right of eligible voters to vote,” Miyares argued.

In a sign that the Supreme Court was considering expediting Virginia’s petition, the high court ordered the DOJ and voting rights groups to submit their responses by Tuesday afternoon.

Miyares’ petition came after three 4th Circuit judges, two appointed by Obama and one appointed by Biden, agreed with the lower court’s ruling, saying in a weekend order that Miyares’ argument was “weak” because the state had not independently verified that each of the individuals. removed from the electoral roll was a non-citizen. That means the removals were systematic, and federal law expressly prohibits systematic removals during the quiet period, the three-judge panel observed.

The panel said it was in the public interest to keep voters on the electoral roll in case “faulty databases or bureaucratic errors” led to the accidental expulsion of citizens, who would have little time to correct the error of the State.

LIVE UPDATES FROM ELECTIONS 2024: LATEST NEWS ON THE TRUMP-HARRIS PRESIDENTIAL RACE

The panel noted that the state has other ways to prevent potential noncitizens from voting.

“Under the preliminary injunction, appellants remain able to prevent non-citizens from voting by canceling registrations on an individualized basis or suing any non-citizen who votes – options that the district court specifically reported during the hearing and in its written order,” the three-judge panel wrote. .