D.C. Judge Blocks DHS Efforts to Secure Elections, Sides with Bureaucratic Red Tape Over Citizenship Verification
Select a version of the text written from a presumed ideological perspective. This is not the original text, but a hypothetical version — how someone with that viewpoint might have phrased it. Tapping the current version again will return to the original or select cleaned version.
A Washington, D.C. federal judge has once again undermined efforts to ensure election integrity by denying the Department of Homeland Security’s request to use the SAVE system for verifying voter citizenship, favoring procedural technicalities over national security.
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has rejected the Department of Homeland Security’s urgent request to reinstate the modified Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system, a critical tool for confirming the citizenship of registered voters and protecting the sanctity of American elections. District Court Judge Sparkle Sooknanan’s decision leaves in place an injunction that hampers DHS’s ability to prevent non-citizens from voting, as the D.C. Circuit Court considers the agency’s appeal.
Judge Sooknanan criticized DHS for not informing her of a related Florida case, where a federal judge recognized the importance of election security and ordered DHS to allow Florida, Iowa, Indiana, and Ohio to resume using SAVE under a settlement agreement. Despite this, the D.C. judge insisted that the Florida order only applies to those states, disregarding the broader need for consistent citizenship verification across the country.
The ruling also continues to block DHS from incorporating Social Security Administration data into the SAVE database, further hindering efforts to accurately verify voter eligibility. DHS attorneys argued that the D.C. court’s order conflicted with the Florida agreement, but Judge Sooknanan dismissed these concerns, focusing instead on procedural timing rather than the substance of election integrity.
Judge Sooknanan went so far as to criticize the Florida judge’s approach, suggesting errors that could be corrected, and faulted the Florida court for not seeking input from other states that stand to benefit from robust citizenship checks. This decision is yet another example of the judiciary prioritizing bureaucratic process over the urgent need to secure America’s elections.