Emergency order lets federal agencies share citizenship and Social Security data with states after sharp dissent from the court's liberal justices about possible voter purges.
 |
| The Supreme Court's emergency ruling allows a federal voter data system to move forward ahead of the midterm elections. |
The Supreme Court ruled Friday that the Trump administration can continue with an expansive online system that compiles citizenship records, Social Security numbers, and other personal data about millions of Americans -- and shares the information with states to help them identify voters who may not be eligible to cast ballots.
In a rare emergency ruling, the court lifted a lower court order banning the program. The court's majority said the lower court had overstepped its bounds by stopping the federal government from helping state and local officials to perform what the majority called the proper administration of the midterm elections.
The ruling was a significant win for the administration, which has spent months urging federal agencies to share data that critics say could change who is eligible to vote in November. The ruling returns the case to the lower courts, but the program can continue in the meantime.
What the system does
At the center of the case is a federal data-matching system involving citizenship information, Social Security numbers and other sensitive data held by government agencies. States that sign up can use that data to identify eligible voters -- for instance, people who are non-citizens or have moved or died -- and potentially prevent them from casting a ballot.
The administration promotes the system as one that will increase election integrity and assist states in maintaining accurate lists of voters. The ruling Friday did not answer the more profound legal questions about whether the government has the right to create such a system in the first place, but it allowed the program to continue while those questions are litigated.
Liberal justices warn of disenfranchisement
The court's three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issuing a 12-page opinion joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
Jackson warned that the decision of the majority could cause some states to cancel the registrations of recently naturalized citizens or require them to show proof -- or provide it -- before they can vote. She argued that the harm caused by even a small number of lawful voters being burdened outweighs what harm the government may experience if it is temporarily prevented from taking an action that it does not have the authority to do.
"The harm caused by burdening or disenfranchising even a few lawful voters outweighs the nonexistent harm that the government experiences when it is prevented from taking an action that it likely lacks the authority to take."
The emergency ruling was unsigned and did not include a vote, which is typical for decisions made on the court's shadow docket -- a fast-tracked procedure for urgent requests. The lack of a recorded tally makes it harder to tell how divided the justices were beyond the three dissents.
Why the timing matters
The ruling comes about six weeks before the midterm elections, when control of Congress and dozens of state offices is going to be decided. Voter registration deadlines and early voting windows are already opening in several states. There is not much time for officials to adapt to the new system or address concerns about its effects
Critics of the system say that data matching is prone to false positives, so it can result in states removing citizens from the voter rolls based on clerical errors. Supporters say the system is a tool, not a mandate. Voters must still submit proof -- or provide it -- for changes to be made to their information or for them to be prevented from voting if they are ineligible.
What happens next
The legal brawl is far from over, as the case returns to the lower courts where judges will continue to assess whether the administration has the right to operate the system and whether its agreements with states are consistent with federal law. For now, states that want to use the system are able to do so. What they will actually do -- and how aggressively they will act on the information -- will likely vary, with some states run by Democrats already indicating they will not be a part of it.
The practical impact on voters is unclear. They should not be removed from the voter rolls unless they are eligible and correctly registered, but anyone whose records are inconsistent in any way could be subject to additional measures. Voters with questions about their information should contact their local election office.
Post a Comment