Skip to content 
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a lawsuit against the state of Alabama and its top election official, Secretary of State Wes Allen, for allegedly violating federal law by purging individuals from voter rolls too close to a federal election. This lawsuit revolves around the National Voter Registration Act’s “quiet period provision,” which prohibits the systematic removal of names from voter rolls within 90 days of a federal election.
Who Decided To Purge The List
Wes Allen, the Republican Secretary of State of Alabama, decided to purge the state’s voter rolls ahead of the upcoming federal election. After being elected in 2022, Allen announced an initiative in August 2024 to remove noncitizens from Alabama’s voter registration rolls.
Allen argued that this action was necessary to ensure only American citizens could vote in Alabama’s elections, framing it as part of his constitutional duty to uphold the integrity of the electoral process. He directly targeted individuals with noncitizen identification numbers, flagging more than 3,000 people for potential removal from the voter rolls. By doing so, Allen aimed to prevent noncitizens from participating in the election, although this decision raised concerns about errors affecting eligible voters.
It Also Affected Naturalized And Native-Born Citizens
Allen’s decision, however, has faced significant scrutiny and legal challenges, as it appears to have affected not only noncitizens but also naturalized U.S. citizens and native-born Americans. The state moved the voter registration status of some eligible individuals to “inactive” due to the purge. This action caused confusion and concern, especially because officials announced and implemented the initiative during the 90-day “quiet period” before a federal election. This period prohibits the systematic removal of voters from the rolls, which heightened concerns about the timing and legality of the process.
Part Of A Greater Movement
Allen’s initiative reflects a broader pattern in various states, where election officials, driven by concerns over election integrity, have implemented aggressive measures to clean up voter rolls. However, these efforts have frequently resulted in the erroneous removal of eligible voters, raising concerns about voter suppression and the disenfranchisement of marginalized communities, particularly naturalized citizens and people of color. Critics argue that Allen’s voter purge could disproportionately affect these groups, making it more difficult for them to participate in the democratic process.
What Is The Quiet Provision
The “quiet period provision” is an important aspect of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993, designed to protect voters’ rights during the critical period leading up to federal elections. Specifically, the quiet period refers to the prohibition against systematically removing voters from the registration rolls within 90 days before a federal election. This provision aims to prevent confusion, errors, and disenfranchisement, ensuring that voters are not unjustly removed from the rolls and denied their right to vote at a crucial time.
Avoids Mass Purging Of Citizens
The quiet period provision acknowledges the importance of maintaining voter registration rolls, as it allows for the removal of individuals who have moved, died, or become ineligible to vote. However, it also acknowledges that conducting large-scale voter purges close to an election can improperly remove eligible voters. This provision acts as a safeguard by requiring voter roll maintenance to be completed well in advance of the election, giving individuals enough time to correct errors or confirm their eligibility.
90-Day Period For A Reason
The 90-day window is critical because it aligns with the heightened importance of electoral preparations, where citizens are expected to be informed and ready to vote. Any disruptions in their registration status could lead to confusion and difficulties in reinstating voting rights in time for the election. During this period, voters may be less likely to receive or respond to notifications about changes to their status, and election officials may not have sufficient time to rectify errors.
Allows For A Fair Process
By imposing the quiet period, the NVRA ensures stability and fairness in the electoral process. It prevents the sudden, large-scale purging of voters, especially those who are eligible but may have been flagged erroneously, and provides legal recourse if the quiet period is violated, as seen in the recent lawsuit involving Alabama’s voter roll purge. The provision ultimately protects the integrity of the voting process by ensuring that eligible voters are not disenfranchised close to an election.
Another Law Firm Is Suing Alabama
In addition to the lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), along with the Campaign Legal Center and the Fair Elections Center, has also initiated legal action against Alabama’s voter roll purge.
This lawsuit specifically challenges the state’s decision to remove voters flagged as noncitizens, arguing that the purge disproportionately targets naturalized citizens who were once issued noncitizen identification numbers but have since become U.S. citizens. The lawsuit highlights how officials are wrongfully flagging these fully eligible individuals for removal from the voter rolls, creating confusion and potentially disenfranchising them.
The Lawsuit Represent Two U.S Citizens
The SPLC’s lawsuit represents two U.S. citizens who received letters from Alabama election officials stating that the purge had made their voter registration status inactive. One plaintiff is a Dutch-born man who became a U.S. citizen in 2022, and the other is a U.S.-born citizen.
Officials incorrectly flagged both individuals due to outdated information, revealing the broader issue at the core of this case: the state’s reliance on old noncitizen identification records without properly verifying updated citizenship status. The SPLC argues that this approach not only violates federal law but also places undue burdens on naturalized citizens, forcing them to take extra steps to maintain their voting rights.
Argues There Is A Lack Of Safeguard In Place
The SPLC’s legal challenge focuses on how this purge reflects systemic issues that could disproportionately affect vulnerable populations, particularly immigrants and people of color. The lawsuit points out that Alabama’s process lacks sufficient safeguards to ensure that naturalized citizens are not mistakenly swept up in the purge.
By targeting individuals who may have once held noncitizen identification numbers, but are now legitimate voters, the state’s actions risk disenfranchising a significant number of eligible citizens. This, the SPLC argues, undermines the fundamental democratic right to vote and violates both the National Voter Registration Act and the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law.
The DOJ Seeks An Injunction
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is seeking injunctive relief in its lawsuit against Alabama, aiming to stop the state’s voter roll purge and protect eligible voters from disenfranchisement.
Injunctive relief is a legal remedy in the form of a court order that requires a party to either perform or cease specific actions. In this case, the DOJ is asking the court to intervene and stop Alabama from continuing its purge of voter rolls, which the department argues violates the National Voter Registration Act’s “quiet period provision.” The request for injunctive relief is critical because it seeks an immediate halt to the voter purge, restoring the ability of those wrongly purged to vote in the upcoming federal election.
Without An Injunctive Relief, Voters Could Not Vote
The DOJ’s decision to pursue this remedy underscores the urgency of the situation. Without injunctive relief, thousands of eligible voters, including both naturalized citizens and U.S.-born citizens, could remain disenfranchised due to administrative errors stemming from Alabama’s initiative to remove noncitizens from the voter rolls.
The DOJ’s lawsuit highlights that some voters flagged for removal have already received notifications marking their voter registration status as inactive, causing confusion and uncertainty about their eligibility to vote. With the election rapidly approaching, the DOJ is urgently seeking swift court intervention to prevent these individuals from being wrongfully excluded from participating in the democratic process. By acting quickly, the DOJ aims to prevent further confusion and protect the voting rights of those affected before it’s too late.
Why This Is An Important Step
Injunctive relief is particularly important in cases like this, where the potential harm—voter disenfranchisement—could have irreversible consequences. If Alabama continues the purge and removes eligible voters from the rolls without giving them enough time to resolve the issue, those individuals could permanently lose their right to vote in the upcoming election. By seeking injunctive relief, the DOJ hopes to prevent this from happening and ensure that the state complies with federal law, particularly the protections built into the “quiet period” provision.
Ultimately, the DOJ’s pursuit of injunctive relief is about protecting voters’ rights and maintaining the integrity of the electoral process. It seeks to ensure that all eligible voters, regardless of any administrative errors or confusion, have the opportunity to participate in the November election without undue obstacles or barriers. The outcome of this request could significantly reshape how Alabama handles voter roll maintenance and set a precedent for similar actions in other states.
How Both Lawsuit Underscore The Seriousness
Both the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) lawsuits highlight the significant implications of Alabama’s voter roll purge, underscoring the potential harm it poses to the democratic process. These legal challenges emphasize the gravity of purging voters, especially in the critical period leading up to a federal election, and bring attention to the risks of disenfranchising eligible citizens—both native-born and naturalized. The lawsuits collectively reflect a broader concern about the fairness, accuracy, and transparency of voter roll maintenance, particularly when done hastily or without adequate safeguards.
Together, these lawsuits underscore the seriousness of Alabama’s voter roll purge by highlighting the dual concerns of timing and discrimination. The lawsuits reveal how administrative actions, when not carefully managed, can undermine trust in the electoral system and lead to widespread voter suppression. They also reflect a broader national debate about the balance between securing the integrity of elections and ensuring that every eligible citizen can exercise their right to vote without facing unnecessary obstacles. If successful, these legal challenges could set important precedents for how voter roll maintenance should be conducted across the United States, ensuring that purges are conducted fairly, transparently, and in accordance with federal law.
How Would Their Guilt Impact The Situation?
If the court finds Alabama guilty in the lawsuits filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the state will face significant legal and political repercussions, along with potential changes to its election practices. The immediate outcome will likely involve a court order that halts the voter roll purge, specifically through the issuance of an injunction.
This injunctive relief will reinstate the registration status of wrongfully purged voters and prevent Alabama from removing more voters during the 90-day “quiet period” before the election. This action will ensure that individuals unjustly flagged or removed can participate in the upcoming federal election, thereby preserving their right to vote.
They Could Implement New Procedures
Beyond the immediate impact on the upcoming election, a guilty verdict would require Alabama to implement new procedures for maintaining its voter rolls in compliance with federal law. The state would likely be forced to revise its approach to voter roll purges, ensuring that any future efforts are conducted well in advance of elections and include adequate safeguards to prevent the removal of eligible voters, particularly naturalized citizens. This could involve closer monitoring and oversight by federal authorities to ensure that the state adheres to the requirements of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and other relevant federal voting rights laws.
Could Damage The Reputation Of Alabama
Moreover, a guilty finding could damage the reputation of Alabama’s election officials and fuel criticism of the state’s electoral processes, particularly from civil rights organizations and voting rights advocates. It may lead to increased public scrutiny of voter suppression efforts, both in Alabama and nationwide, with calls for stronger federal oversight of election practices. Politically, the verdict could affect the state’s leadership, especially if voters view the purge as an unjust attempt to suppress voting rights.
Need Help? Call Us Now!
Do not forget that when you or anyone you know is facing a criminal charge, you have us, the Law Office of Bryan Fagan, by your side to help you build the best defense case for you. We will work and be in your best interest for you and we will obtain the best possible outcome that can benefit you.
Our team is here to explain your trial, guiding you through the criminal justice process with clarity and support every step of the way. If you’re navigating the complexities of criminal charges and the court system seems daunting, reach out.
Therefore, do not hesitate to call us if you find yourself or someone you know that is facing criminal charges unsure about the court system. We will work with you to give you the best type of defense that can help you solve your case. It is vital to have someone explain the result of the charge to you and guide you in the best possible way.
Here at the Law Office of Bryan Fagan, our professional and knowledgeable criminal law attorneys build a defense case that suits your needs, aiming for the best possible outcome to benefit you.
At the Law Office of Bryan Fagan, we offer a free consultation at your convenience. You can schedule your appointment via Zoom, Google Meet, email, or in person. We provide comprehensive advice and information to help you achieve the best possible result in your case.
Call us now at (281) 810-9760.
Other Related Articles
Trump Indictment: Analyzing the Legal Developments and Implications
DOJ Latest Report: Abuse Exposed In Texas Juvenile Detention
Startling Voter Fraud Sends Crystal Manson Into Panic
Analyzing Federal Voting Scandals
Understanding the Mechanisms and Risks of Voter Fraud
FAQs on Alabama Voter Roll Purge
The quiet period provision is part of the National Voter Registration Act, prohibiting voter roll purges within 90 days of a federal election. Its goal is to prevent eligible voters from being removed too close to the election, allowing time for errors to be corrected and ensuring voters can participate.
Alabama, led by Secretary of State Wes Allen, decided to purge its voter rolls to remove noncitizens and ensure that only U.S. citizens were voting. However, this purge has also mistakenly affected naturalized citizens and eligible voters.
The DOJ is seeking injunctive relief to stop Alabama’s voter purge and restore the registration status of eligible voters who were wrongfully removed. This would allow these individuals to vote in the upcoming election.
The SPLC lawsuit challenges Alabama’s voter roll purge, claiming it disproportionately affects naturalized citizens. The lawsuit argues that individuals who once had noncitizen identification numbers, but are now U.S. citizens, are being wrongfully flagged for removal.
If Alabama is found guilty, it would be ordered to stop the purge and restore affected voters. The state would need to revise its voter roll maintenance practices, and the ruling could influence how similar purges are handled across the U.S.
