The Supreme Court Gave the Green Light to Voter Purges. Trump’s Justice Department Isn’t Wasting Any Time.

One day after the court upheld voter purging in Ohio, the administration sued Kentucky to make it purge its rolls.

President Donald Trump shakes hands with Attorney General Jeff Sessions after he is sworn into officeJim LoScalzo/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

One day after the Supreme Court upheld voter purging in Ohio, the Justice Department decided to get in on the action. The department sued the state of Kentucky on Tuesday to force it to ā€œsystematically remove the names of ineligible voters from the registration recordsā€ā€”and Kentucky quickly agreed to comply.

The lawsuit, filed in conjunction with the conservative group Judicial Watch, alleges that Kentucky has not made “a reasonable effort to remove registrants who have become ineligible due to a change of residence.ā€ Judicial Watch first sued Kentucky in November 2017, and the Justice Department announced it was joining the lawsuit on Tuesday. That same day, Kentucky settled the lawsuit and said it would make ā€œa reasonable effort to remove from the statewide voter registration list the names of registrants who have become ineligible.ā€

This is the Trump administrationā€™s first lawsuit against a state to force aggressive voter voter purging and could be the beginning of a new effort to curb voting rights. In June 2017ā€”on the same day that President Donald Trump’s controversial Election Integrity Commission asked states to hand over sensitive voter dataā€” the Justice Department sent a letter to 44 states informing them it was reviewing their voter list maintenance procedures and asking how they planned to ā€œremove the names of ineligible voters.ā€ Vanita Gupta, who led the Justice Departmentā€™s Civil Rights Division under President Barack Obama, called the letter ā€œvirtually unprecedentedā€ and predicted it would lead to new voter purges.

That is happening now. The Justice Department lawsuit was filed against Kentuckyā€™s Democratic secretary of state, Alison Lundergan Grimes, who last year vocally denounced a different Trump administration request, for voter data from all 50 states. She said at the time, “There’s not enough bourbon here in Kentucky to make this request seem sensible.ā€

The Trump administration sued Kentucky under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which was supposed to make voter registration more accessible by allowing people to sign up to vote at motor vehicle offices and other public agencies. The law also contained a provision requiring states to make a ā€œreasonable effortā€ remove ineligible voters from the rolls. The George W.Bush administration sued four states under this list maintenance provision to force them to purge ineligible voters. This voter purge strategy has been expanded by conservative activists in recent years, who have sued or threatened to sue 11 states where they claim the voter rolls are inflated. 

If not done with proper safeguards, voter purges can cause eligible voters to be removed from the rolls. In 2006, a state court in Kentucky blocked an effort by then-Secretary of State Trey Grayson, a Republican, to purge the voter rolls, finding that more than 8,100 eligible Kentucky voters had been removed.

Wrongful purging has swung close elections in Republicansā€™ favor. This happened most notably during the 2000 election in Florida, when the state wrongly labeled 12,000 eligible voters as ex-felons and purged them from the voter rolls. That was 22 times Bushā€™s 537-vote margin of victory over Al Gore.

In addition to the Justice Departmentā€™s lawsuit against Kentucky, Republicans have already sought to use the Supreme Courtā€™s Ohio decision to their advantage in other ways. On Wednesday, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, the former vice chair of the now-defunct Election Integrity Commission, took to federal court to try to reinstate a Kansas law requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote. The law blocked one in seven eligible voters who attempted to register and was put on hold by the courts.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate