Home · Politics · Sep 17 archive
Groups Urge Supreme Court to Keep in Place Voter Database Ban Ruling
Confirmed
In Short: Lawyers for the League of Women Voters and the Electronic Privacy Information Center have urged the Supreme Court to maintain a ruling that bars the federal government from using a centralized voter database.
Lawyers for the League of Women Voters and the Electronic Privacy Information Center have urged the Supreme Court to maintain a ruling that bars the federal government from using a centralized voter database, according to reports. The filing came less than 24 hours after the Supreme Court rejected the federal government's request to implement portions of a U.S. Postal Service rule on mail-in ballots.
The dispute has its roots in a March 25 executive order that instructed the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration to establish systems that would allow state and local governments to verify voters' citizenship and immigration status. Those agencies then overhauled the Department of Homeland Security's Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements database, known as the SAVE system, to include the records of U.S.-born citizens, to give it access to Social Security numbers, and to allow users to conduct multiple searches simultaneously.
The League of Women Voters and the Electronic Privacy Information Center went to federal court in Washington, where they challenged the changes to the SAVE system. In a filing, Nikhel Sus, the lawyer representing the two groups, told the justices that, in violation of federal law, 'the government has recklessly created an error-laden master citizenship database that endangers millions of Americans' privacy and voting rights.
The ruling means that the rules implementing the order, issued by the USPS in August, will not be in effect for the Nov. 3 election. The dispute has also drawn criticism from the Trump administration, which harshly criticized its three Supreme Court appointees, Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, for apparently joining with all three liberal justices, plus Chief Justice John Roberts, in Monday's decision.
According to reports, the groups also told the justices that the federal government was reading too much into a provision of federal immigration law, which, Sauer had argued, trumps any other federal law, like the Social Security Act or the Privacy Act, that might prevent DHS from obtaining or disclosing information. Finally, the groups said, there is no real harm to the government if it cannot move forward with the modified system while the litigation continues.
What's confirmed
- Lawyers for the League of Women Voters and the Electronic Privacy Information Center have urged the Supreme Court to maintain a ruling that bars the federal government from using a centralized voter database, according to reports. The filing came less than 24 hours after the Supreme Court rejected the federal government's request to implement portions of a U.S. Postal Service rule on mail-in ballots.
- The dispute has its roots in a March 25 executive order that instructed the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration to establish systems that would allow state and local governments to verify voters' citizenship and immigration status. Those agencies then overhauled the Department of Homeland Security's Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements database, known as the SAVE system, to include the records of U.S.-born citizens, to give it access to Social Security numbers, and to allow users to conduct multiple searches simultaneously.
- The League of Women Voters and the Electronic Privacy Information Center went to federal court in Washington, where they challenged the changes to the SAVE system. In a filing, Nikhel Sus, the lawyer representing the two groups, told the justices that, in violation of federal law, 'the government has recklessly created an error-laden master citizenship database that endangers millions of Americans' privacy and voting rights.
- The ruling means that the rules implementing the order, issued by the USPS in August, will not be in effect for the Nov. 3 election. The dispute has also drawn criticism from the Trump administration, which harshly criticized its three Supreme Court appointees, Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, for apparently joining with all three liberal justices, plus Chief Justice John Roberts, in Monday's decision.
- According to reports, the groups also told the justices that the federal government was reading too much into a provision of federal immigration law, which, Sauer had argued, trumps any other federal law, like the Social Security Act or the Privacy Act, that might prevent DHS from obtaining or disclosing information. Finally, the groups said, there is no real harm to the government if it cannot move forward with the modified system while the litigation continues.
What's still developing
- Sooknanan wrote that “the federal government has knowingly trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens in a manner that threatens the sacred right to vote.” Moreover, she continued, “states have partnered with the federal government to access the database and are actively removing United States citizens from voter rolls based on inaccurate information.” By a vote of 2-1, the U.S.