A Federal Law Bars Late Voter-Roll Purges. Republicans Are Asking the Supreme Court to Read It Differently

A decades-old federal protection that bars states from systematically purging their voter rolls in the final stretch before a federal election is now headed for the Supreme Court, in a case that could reshape how aggressively states can remove registered voters heading into the 2026 midterms and beyond.

At issue is a provision of the National Voter Registration Act, the 1993 law commonly known as the "motor voter" act. It prohibits any "program the purpose of which is to systematically remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters" within 90 days of a federal election. The so-called quiet period was designed to prevent eligible voters from being swept off the rolls by last-minute, error-prone purges that leave little time to correct mistakes before Election Day.

Republican officials in Arizona and Ohio are pressing courts to reinterpret that language. Their central argument is that the 90-day ban simply does not apply to noncitizens — that a program aimed specifically at removing people who are not U.S. citizens falls outside the statute's protection, regardless of when it is carried out. The Supreme Court agreed to take up the Arizona case, with arguments expected during its new term beginning in October.

The push comes as President Trump and Republican leaders continue to assert, without evidence, that noncitizen voting is a widespread problem. Multiple state reviews have found that illegal voting by noncitizens is exceedingly rare, and voting-rights advocates warn that programs ostensibly targeting noncitizens frequently ensnare eligible Americans — often naturalized citizens or voters flagged by faulty database matches — who then face the burden of proving their eligibility on a compressed timeline.

The administration has also sued several states in unsuccessful attempts to obtain sensitive voter-registration data to run through a federal database known as the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE, program. Voting-rights groups say a ruling narrowing the NVRA's quiet period could open the door to a wave of eleventh-hour purges in the run-up to future elections, while Republican officials counter that states must retain the tools to keep ineligible voters off the rolls. The justices' decision, expected by next summer, will carry sweeping implications for how American elections are administered.

The Supreme Court has taken an increasingly active role in election law in recent years, and its conservative majority has shown a willingness to revisit longstanding interpretations of federal voting statutes. Civil-rights organizations that helped write and defend the National Voter Registration Act argue that the quiet period has functioned for three decades as a critical backstop against error, giving election officials time to catch and reverse wrongful removals before ballots are cast. A ruling for the Republican officials, they warn, could carve a sweeping exception into that protection just as turnout climbs heading into a high-stakes election cycle.