The Department of Justice is suing six additional states to compel them to share their statewide voter registration lists with the federal government, an unusual request that has drawn pushback from election officials in both parties in the past.
DOJ’s Civil Rights Division filed federal lawsuits Thursday against election officials in California, New York, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and New Hampshire claiming the states violated federal law by refusing to share voter rolls with the Trump administration.
Access to voting rolls varies state by state, but the rolls are generally released to the public and government agencies with voters’ private data — like driver’s license numbers or the last four digits of Social Security numbers — redacted.
The DOJ’s lawsuits demand the rolls with that data included. Similar requests have been rebuffed by election officials across the country, both recently and in past years, out of privacy concerns and opposition to federal encroachment in state elections. Some officials have also tied the effort to President Donald Trump’s long history of spreading election misinformation, including falsely accusing states of allowing noncitizen immigrants to vote en masse.
Last week, the DOJ filed similar lawsuits against election officials in Maine and Oregon, prompting sharp rebukes from each state’s top elections official.
“This is not normal,” Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat, said in a statement last week. “Trump’s DOJ is using its immense federal power to try to intimidate us into turning over protected voter data and changing our voting processes to fit President Trump’s whims.”
Michigan, Minnesota and California have Democrats as their secretaries of state, while New Hampshire and Pennsylvania have Republican chief election officials. New York has a state board of elections. Spokespeople for all six election authorities did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuits.
The lawsuits demand states to share highly sensitive information on voters, including Social Security numbers and driver’s license numbers, as part of the administration’s effort to create “clean voter rolls.”
“Clean voter rolls are the foundation of free and fair elections,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement. “Every state has a responsibility to ensure that voter registration records are accurate, accessible, and secure — states that don’t fulfill that obligation will see this Department of Justice in court.”
The Trump administration appears to be prioritizing access to the private information of voters. Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson sanctioned the release of some voter roll data to DOJ after multiple requests but did not include any personally identifying information on voters.
In March, Trump signed an executive order directing DOJ and the Department of Homeland Security to take measures preventing noncitizens from voting in elections — a baseless claim that Trump has touted for years, including ahead of the 2024 election and in his attempts to delegitimize the results of the 2020 election.
Trump explored a similar measure during his first term. He established the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity in 2017 to examine cases of voter fraud.
A federal judge ruled Sunday that Iowa can continue challenging the validity of hundreds of ballots from potential noncitizens even though critics said the effort threatens the voting rights of people who’ve recently become U.S. citizens.U.S. District Judge Stephen Locher, an appointee of President Joe Biden, sided with the state in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union in the Iowa capital of Des Moines on behalf of the League of Latin American Citizens of Iowa and four recently naturalized citizens. The four were on the state’s list of questionable registrations to be challenged by local elections officials.Related video above: Get the Facts: Counting votesThe state’s Republican attorney general and secretary of state argued that investigating and potentially removing 2,000 names from the list would prevent illegal voting by noncitizens. GOP officials across the U.S. have made possible voting by noncitizen immigrants a key election-year talking point even though it is rare. Their focus has come with former President Donald Trump falsely suggesting that his opponents already are committing fraud to prevent his return to the White House.In his ruling Sunday, Locher pointed to a U.S. Supreme Court decision four days prior that allowed Virginia to resume a similar purge of its voter registration rolls even though it was impacting some U.S. citizens. He also cited the Supreme Court’s recent refusal to review a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision on state electoral laws surrounding provisional ballots. Those Supreme Court decisions advise lower courts to “act with great caution before awarding last-minute injunctive relief,” he wrote.Locher also said the state’s effort does not remove anyone from the voter rolls, but rather requires some voters to use provisional ballots.In a statement on Sunday, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, a Republican, celebrated the ruling.“Today’s ruling is a victory for election integrity,” Reynolds said. “In Iowa, while we encourage all citizens to vote, we will enforce the law and ensure those votes aren’t cancelled out by the illegal vote of a non-citizen.”Rita Bettis Austen, legal director for the ACLU of Iowa, said some voters could be disenfranchised due to the ruling and Secretary of State Paul Pate’s directive.“We are obviously disappointed with the court’s decision not to outright block Secretary Pate’s directive, which we still fear threatens to disenfranchise eligible voters simply because they are people who became citizens in the past several years,” Austen said in a written statement. “Even the Secretary agrees that the vast majority of voters on his list are United States citizens.”Even still, Austen said the lawsuit forced Pate to back away from forcing everyone on the list to vote provisionally only. County auditors may permit a voter on the list to cast a regular ballot if they deem it appropriate, and voters can prove they are citizens with documentation, she added.After Locher had a hearing in the ACLU’s lawsuit Friday, Pate and state Attorney General Brenna Bird issued a statement saying that Iowa had about 250 noncitizens registered to vote, but the Biden administration wouldn’t provide data about them.Pate told reporters last month that his office was forced to rely upon a list of potential noncitizens from the Iowa Department of Transportation. It named people who registered to vote or voted after identifying themselves as noncitizens living in the U.S. legally when they previously sought driver’s licenses.”Today’s court victory is a guarantee for all Iowans that their votes will count and not be canceled out by illegal votes,” Bird said in the statement issued after Sunday’s decision.But ACLU attorneys said Iowa officials were conceding that most of the people on the list are eligible to vote and shouldn’t have been included. They said the state was violating naturalized citizens’ voting rights by wrongfully challenging their registrations and investigating them if they cast ballots.Pate issued his directive Oct. 22, only two weeks before the Nov. 5 election, and ACLU attorneys argued that federal law prohibits such a move so close to Election Day.The people on the state’s list of potential noncitizens may have become naturalized citizens after their statements to the Department of Transportation. Pate’s office told county elections officials to challenge their ballots and have them cast provisional ballots instead. That would leave the decision of whether they will be counted to local officials upon further review, with voters having seven days to provide proof of their U.S. citizenship.In his ruling, Locher wrote that Pate backed away from some of his original hardline positions at an earlier court hearing. Pate’s attorney said the Secretary of State is no longer aiming to require local election officials to challenge the votes of each person on his list or force voters on the list to file provisional ballots even when they have proven citizenship at a polling place.Federal law and states already make it illegal for noncitizens to vote, and the first question on Iowa’s voter registration form asks whether a person is a U.S. citizen. The form also requires potential voters to sign a statement saying they are citizens, warning them that if they lie, they can be convicted of a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison.Locher’s ruling also came after a federal judge had halted a similar program in Alabama challenged by civil rights groups and the U.S. Department of Justice. Testimony from state officials in that case showed that roughly 2,000 of the more than 3,200 voters who were made inactive were actually legally registered citizens.In Iowa’s case, noncitizens who are registered are potentially only a tiny fraction of the state’s 2.2 million registered voters.But Locher wrote that it appears to be undisputed that some portion of the names on Pate’s list are registered voters who are not U.S. citizens. Even if that portion is small, an injunction effectively would force local election officials to let ineligible voters cast ballots, he added.Democrats and Republicans have been engaged in a sprawling legal fight over this year’s election for months. Republicans have filed dozens of lawsuits challenging various aspects of vote-casting after being chastised repeatedly by judges in 2020 for bringing complaints about how the election was run only after votes were tallied. Democrats have their own team of dozens of staffers fighting GOP cases.Immigrants gain citizenship through a process called naturalization, which includes establishing residency, proving knowledge of basic American history and institutions as well as taking an oath of allegiance to the United States.—-Hanna reported from Topeka, Kansas, and Goldberg, from Minneapolis.
A federal judge ruled Sunday that Iowa can continue challenging the validity of hundreds of ballots from potential noncitizens even though critics said the effort threatens the voting rights of people who’ve recently become U.S. citizens.
U.S. District Judge Stephen Locher, an appointee of President Joe Biden, sided with the state in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union in the Iowa capital of Des Moines on behalf of the League of Latin American Citizens of Iowa and four recently naturalized citizens. The four were on the state’s list of questionable registrations to be challenged by local elections officials.
Related video above: Get the Facts: Counting votes
The state’s Republican attorney general and secretary of state argued that investigating and potentially removing 2,000 names from the list would prevent illegal voting by noncitizens. GOP officials across the U.S. have made possible voting by noncitizen immigrants a key election-year talking point even though it is rare. Their focus has come with former President Donald Trump falsely suggesting that his opponents already are committing fraud to prevent his return to the White House.
In his ruling Sunday, Locher pointed to a U.S. Supreme Court decision four days prior that allowed Virginia to resume a similar purge of its voter registration rolls even though it was impacting some U.S. citizens. He also cited the Supreme Court’s recent refusal to review a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision on state electoral laws surrounding provisional ballots. Those Supreme Court decisions advise lower courts to “act with great caution before awarding last-minute injunctive relief,” he wrote.
Locher also said the state’s effort does not remove anyone from the voter rolls, but rather requires some voters to use provisional ballots.
In a statement on Sunday, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, a Republican, celebrated the ruling.
“Today’s ruling is a victory for election integrity,” Reynolds said. “In Iowa, while we encourage all citizens to vote, we will enforce the law and ensure those votes aren’t cancelled out by the illegal vote of a non-citizen.”
Rita Bettis Austen, legal director for the ACLU of Iowa, said some voters could be disenfranchised due to the ruling and Secretary of State Paul Pate’s directive.
“We are obviously disappointed with the court’s decision not to outright block Secretary Pate’s directive, which we still fear threatens to disenfranchise eligible voters simply because they are people who became citizens in the past several years,” Austen said in a written statement. “Even the Secretary agrees that the vast majority of voters on his list are United States citizens.”
Even still, Austen said the lawsuit forced Pate to back away from forcing everyone on the list to vote provisionally only. County auditors may permit a voter on the list to cast a regular ballot if they deem it appropriate, and voters can prove they are citizens with documentation, she added.
After Locher had a hearing in the ACLU’s lawsuit Friday, Pate and state Attorney General Brenna Bird issued a statement saying that Iowa had about 250 noncitizens registered to vote, but the Biden administration wouldn’t provide data about them.
Pate told reporters last month that his office was forced to rely upon a list of potential noncitizens from the Iowa Department of Transportation. It named people who registered to vote or voted after identifying themselves as noncitizens living in the U.S. legally when they previously sought driver’s licenses.
“Today’s court victory is a guarantee for all Iowans that their votes will count and not be canceled out by illegal votes,” Bird said in the statement issued after Sunday’s decision.
But ACLU attorneys said Iowa officials were conceding that most of the people on the list are eligible to vote and shouldn’t have been included. They said the state was violating naturalized citizens’ voting rights by wrongfully challenging their registrations and investigating them if they cast ballots.
Pate issued his directive Oct. 22, only two weeks before the Nov. 5 election, and ACLU attorneys argued that federal law prohibits such a move so close to Election Day.
The people on the state’s list of potential noncitizens may have become naturalized citizens after their statements to the Department of Transportation. Pate’s office told county elections officials to challenge their ballots and have them cast provisional ballots instead. That would leave the decision of whether they will be counted to local officials upon further review, with voters having seven days to provide proof of their U.S. citizenship.
In his ruling, Locher wrote that Pate backed away from some of his original hardline positions at an earlier court hearing. Pate’s attorney said the Secretary of State is no longer aiming to require local election officials to challenge the votes of each person on his list or force voters on the list to file provisional ballots even when they have proven citizenship at a polling place.
Federal law and states already make it illegal for noncitizens to vote, and the first question on Iowa’s voter registration form asks whether a person is a U.S. citizen. The form also requires potential voters to sign a statement saying they are citizens, warning them that if they lie, they can be convicted of a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison.
Locher’s ruling also came after a federal judge had halted a similar program in Alabama challenged by civil rights groups and the U.S. Department of Justice. Testimony from state officials in that case showed that roughly 2,000 of the more than 3,200 voters who were made inactive were actually legally registered citizens.
In Iowa’s case, noncitizens who are registered are potentially only a tiny fraction of the state’s 2.2 million registered voters.
But Locher wrote that it appears to be undisputed that some portion of the names on Pate’s list are registered voters who are not U.S. citizens. Even if that portion is small, an injunction effectively would force local election officials to let ineligible voters cast ballots, he added.
Democrats and Republicans have been engaged in a sprawling legal fight over this year’s election for months. Republicans have filed dozens of lawsuits challenging various aspects of vote-casting after being chastised repeatedly by judges in 2020 for bringing complaints about how the election was run only after votes were tallied. Democrats have their own team of dozens of staffers fighting GOP cases.
Immigrants gain citizenship through a process called naturalization, which includes establishing residency, proving knowledge of basic American history and institutions as well as taking an oath of allegiance to the United States.
—-
Hanna reported from Topeka, Kansas, and Goldberg, from Minneapolis.
The request comes after a federal appeals court unanimously upheld a federal judge’s order restoring the registrations of those 1,600 voters, whom the judge said were illegally purged from the rolls under an executive order by the state’s Republican governor.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Virginia on Monday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene to allow the state to remove roughly 1,600 voters from its rolls that it believes are noncitizens.
The request comes after a federal appeals court on Sunday unanimously upheld a federal judge’s order restoring the registrations of those 1,600 voters, whom the judge said were illegally purged under an executive order by the state’s Republican governor.
Gov. Glenn Youngkin says he ordered the daily removals in an effort to keep noncitizens from voting. But U.S. District Judge Patricia Giles ruled late last week that Youngkin’s program was illegal under federal law because it systematically purged voters during a 90-day “quiet period” ahead of the November election.
The Justice Department and a coalition of private groups sued to block Youngkin’s removal program earlier this month. They argued that the quiet period is in place to ensure that legitimate voters aren’t removed from the rolls by bureaucratic errors or last-minute mistakes that can’t be rectified in a timely manner.
Youngkin said he was simply upholding a state law that requires Virginia to cancel noncitizens’ registration.
The ruling Sunday from the three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, sided with the judge who ordered the restoration of voters’ registrations.
The appeals court said Virginia is wrong to assert that it is being forced to restore 1,600 noncitizens to the voter rolls. The judges found that Virginia’s process for removing voters established no proof that those purged were actually noncitizens.
Youngkin’s executive order, issued in August, required daily checks of data from the Department of Motor Vehicles against voter rolls to identify noncitizens.
State officials said any voter identified as a noncitizen was notified and given two weeks to dispute their disqualification before being removed. If they returned a form attesting to their citizenship, their registration would not be canceled.
The plaintiffs said that, as a result of the program, a legitimate voter and citizen could have his or her registration canceled simply by checking the wrong box on a DMV form. The plaintiffs presented evidence showing that at least some of those removed were in fact citizens.
A similar lawsuit was filed in Alabama, and a federal judge there last week ordered the state to restore eligibility for more than 3,200 voters who had been deemed ineligible noncitizens. Testimony from state officials in that case showed that roughly 2,000 of the 3,251 voters who were made inactive were actually legally registered citizens.
The appeal filed to the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday by Virginia’s Republican attorney general, Jason Miyares, asks the high court to intervene by Tuesday. Without any intervention, the injunction issued last week by Giles requires Virginia to notify affect voters and local registrars by Wednesday of the restorations she ordered.
Miyares’ filing argues that requiring Virginia to restore the voter registrations of those who have been identified as noncitizens is a “violation of Virginia law and common sense.”
Virginia also argues that requiring these changes less than a week before the presidential election is bound to create confusion, “creating a massive influx of work for its registrars in the critical week before the election, and likely confusing noncitizens into believing that they are eligible to vote.”
The 4th Circuit opinion was written by Toby Heytens, a Biden appointee, and joined by Chief Judge Albert Diaz and Judge Stephanie Thacker, both Obama appointees.
The panel emphasized, as Giles did in her initial ruling, that the state is within its rights to remove noncitizens from the voter rolls, even during the 90-day quiet period, but must do so in an individualized process rather than the systematic process relying on data transfers from the DMV.
Nearly 6 million Virginians are registered to vote.
(CNN) — A federal appeals court refused to reinstate a Virginia purge program aimed at culling suspected noncitizens from the…
(CNN) — A federal appeals court refused to reinstate a Virginia purge program aimed at culling suspected noncitizens from the voter rolls, leaving in place a lower court ruling that found the program likely violated a federal prohibition on “systematic” removals in the 90 days before an election.
The Sunday decision by the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals sets up a Supreme Court fight over the purge program with early voting already underway in Virginia. Republicans all the way up to former President Donald Trump have seized on the case — a consolidation of lawsuits brought by the Biden administration and private groups — as they have pushed the narrative that voting by noncitizens poses a major threat to the election. It is in fact a very rare occurrence.
The new order from the 4th Circuit noted that Virginia officials are still allowed to prevent noncitizen voting “by canceling registrations on an individualized basis or prosecuting any noncitizen who votes.”
US District Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles, a Biden appointee, on Friday halted the program andordered election officials to restore the registrations of the roughly 1,600 people who had been removed under the program during the so-called 90-day quiet period. Six hundred of those individuals were removed because they checked a box during a Department of Motor Vehicles interaction declaring them noncitizen and the other 1,000 were removed because of records in government databases that indicated noncitizenship.
Former President Donald Trump railed against the Friday ruling on Truth Social, claiming that a “Weaponized Department of ‘Injustice,’ and a Judge (appointed by Joe), have ORDERED the Great Commonwealth of Virginia to PUT NON-CITIZEN VOTERS BACK ON THE ROLLS.”
State officials immediately appealed the ruling to the 4th Circuit, and Trump, in his Truth Social post, said the “U.S. Supreme Court will hopefully fix it!”
At the heart of the dispute is whether that approach is the sort of “systematic” purge program Congress sought to freeze with the 90-day provision in the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, because of the tendency of those programs to remove eligible voters as well. Those suing Virginia say that within 36 hours of receiving a list of the purged voters from the state, they were able to confirm that at least 18 were in fact citizens who were eligible to vote.
In court filings with the 4th Circuit on Saturday, the voting rights groups and immigrant activists pointed to evidence that citizens will mistakenly check the noncitizen box on the DMV form because of its confusing design.
Virginia state officials countered that the National Voter Registration Act’s 90-day quiet period doesn’t apply to their purge program because it’s targeted at noncitizens, and they told the 4th Circuit that the judge’s order to reinstate the people to the rolls “will create confusion and make even-handed administration of the election much more difficult.”
The 4th Circuit order was handed down by appellate panel made up of two Obama appointees and a Biden appointee.
U.S. District Judge Patricia Giles granted an injunction request brought against Virginia election officials by the Justice Department, which claimed the voter registrations were wrongly canceled during a 90-day quiet period ahead of the November election that restricts states from making large-scale changes to their voter rolls.
ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) — A federal judge on Friday ordered Virginia to restore more than 1,600 voter registrations that she said were illegally purged in the last two months in an effort to stop noncitizens from voting.
U.S. District Judge Patricia Giles granted an injunction request brought against Virginia election officials by the Justice Department, which claimed the voter registrations were wrongly canceled during a 90-day quiet period ahead of the November election that restricts states from making large-scale changes to their voter rolls.
State officials said they will appeal.
The Justice Departmen t and private groups, including the League of Women Voters, said many of the 1,600 voters whose registrations were canceled were in fact citizens whose registrations were canceled because of bureaucratic errors or simple mistakes like a mischecked box on a form.
Justice Department lawyer Sejal Jhaveri said during an all-day injunction hearing Thursday in Alexandria, Virginia, that’s precisely why federal law prevents states from implementing systematic changes to the voter rolls in the 90 days before an election, “to prevent the harm of having eligible voters removed in a period where it’s hard to remedy.”
Giles said Friday that the state is not completely prohibited from removing noncitizens from the voting rolls during the 90-day quiet period, but that it must do so on an individualized basis rather than the automated, systematic program employed by the state.
State officials argued unsuccessfully that the canceled registrations followed careful procedures that targeted people who explicitly identified themselves as noncitizens to the Department of Motor Vehicles.
Charles Cooper, a lawyer for the state, said during arguments Thursday that the federal law was never intended to provide protections to noncitizens, who by definition can’t vote in federal elections.
“Congress couldn’t possibly have intended to prevent the removal … of persons who were never eligible to vote in the first place,” Cooper argued.
The plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit, though, said that many people are wrongly identified as noncitizens by the DMV simply by checking the wrong box on a form. They were unable to identify exactly how many of the 1,600 purged voters are in fact citizens — Virginia only identified this week the names and addresses of the affected individuals in response to a court order — but provided anecdotal evidence of individuals whose registrations were wrongly canceled.
Cooper acknowledged that some of the 1,600 voters identified by the state as noncitizens may well be citizens, but he said restoring all of them to the rolls means that in all likelihood “there’s going to hundreds of noncitizens back on those rolls. If a noncitizen votes, it cancels out a legal vote. And that is a harm,” he said.
Virginia’s Republican governor, Glenn Youngkin, issued an executive order in August requiring daily checks of DMV data against voter rolls to identify noncitizens.
State officials said any voter identified as a noncitizen was notified and given two weeks to dispute their disqualification before being removed. If they returned a form attesting to their citizenship, their registration would not be canceled.
Prior to Youngkin’s executive order, the state did monthly checks of the voter rolls against DMV data, in accordance with a state law passed in 2006.
Youngkin said the Justice Department was wrongly targeting him for upholding a law that was followed by his predecessors, including Democrats, even if they didn’t take the extra step of ordering daily checks as he did in his executive order.
“Let’s be clear about what just happened: only eleven days before a Presidential election, a federal judge ordered Virginia to reinstate over 1,500 individuals–who self-identified themselves as noncitizens–back onto the voter rolls.,” Youngkin said in a statement after Friday’s hearing.
Giles, for her part, questioned the timing of Youngkin’s executive order, which was issued on Aug. 7, the very beginning of the 90-day quiet period required under federal law.
“It’s not happenstance that this was announced exactly on the 90th day” of the quiet period, she said Friday from the bench.
Her injunction requires voter registrations be restored for all of those canceled as a result of Youngkin’s executive order, and that letters be sent out within five days informing those voters of their restored status. The letters will also include a note of caution informing those individuals that if they are indeed noncitizens, that they are barred from casting ballots under federal law.
The plaintiffs had asked the judge to grant those voters an extension of the deadline to request absentee ballots, but Giles denied that request, saying it would result in confusion.
“We may not be able to achieve everything we would want,” she said.
Virginia’s Republican attorney general, Jason Miyares, issued a statement after Friday’s hearing criticizing the ruling.
“It should never be illegal to remove an illegal voter,” he said. “Yet, today a Court – urged by the Biden-Harris Department of Justice – ordered Virginia to put the names of non-citizens back on the voter rolls, mere days before a presidential election.”
U.S. Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., who had alterted Justice Department officials to the removals. praised the ruling.
Governor Youngkin’s purges have served only one purpose – to disenfranchise thousands of lawfully voting citizens of the Commonwealth. That stops today,” he said.
Nearly 6 million Virginians are registered to vote.
A similar lawsuit was filed in Alabama, and a federal judge there last week ordered the state to restore eligibility for more than 3,200 voters who had been deemed ineligible noncitizens. Testimony from state officials in that case showed that roughly 2,000 of the 3,251 voters who were made inactive were actually legally registered citizens.
On a hot D.C. Wednesday in the middle of July, an 11-foot statue honoring Mary McLeod Bethune—carved out of marble extracted from the same Tuscan quarry that Michelangelo used for his David—stood draped in a black cloak in the U.S. Capitol’s National Statuary Hall. A group of distinguished guests had gathered to honor Bethune, the prominent educator and civil-rights activist who founded a college for Black students in Daytona Beach, Florida, and later served as an adviser to President Franklin D. Roosevelt. She is now the first Black American to have a state statue in the hall.
The group, which included several members of Florida’s congressional delegation, smiled as cameras flashed. Two of those present, Senator Marco Rubio and Representative Val Demings, are opponents in the race for Rubio’s Senate seat—a race that could secure the Democrats’ control of the Senate. Together, they tugged at the sheet, revealing the white-marble figure clothed in academic regalia, holding a black rose—which, in life, Bethune viewed as a symbol of diversity.
One by one, speakers approached a lectern in front of the statue to offer remarks. “I remember as a little girl listening to my mother and my father talk about a Black woman, a woman who looked like us, who started a college,” Demings told those who had gathered in the amphitheater. “As I listened to my parents tell the story, it seemed impossible. But Dr. Mary McLeod Bethune made what seemed impossible possible.”
Demings hopes to conjure some of Bethune’s magic. The race has for some time been considered a long shot for the 65-year-old former Orlando police chief; to win she’ll need to make what seems impossible possible in a state where the voter rolls have flipped from a more-than-100,000-voter Democratic advantage in 2020 to a Republican lead of nearly the same size in less than two years. And for months the polls reflected that, showing Demings trailing Rubio; but in recent weeks, a new batch of polls has shown Demings pulling into an effective tie, or even a slight lead.
If the race does break her way, the Democrats will have the convergence of two separate story lines to thank. The first is the story of Val Demings herself: a centrist Black woman with a background in law enforcement—just the profile the party has placed its bets on in recent years. It’s no coincidence, after all, that Demings joined then-Senator Kamala Harris and former Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, who both worked as prosecutors before seeking elected office, on Joe Biden’s shortlist for his running mate two years ago.
Political moderates could admire her centrism; people of color could identify with her race; women could identify with her gender. Demings has converted that appeal into a fundraising advantage, pulling in millions more in donations than Rubio so far this cycle, and spending more than twice as much as him on television ads.
And if the national Democratic Party’s unpopularity had been weighing on her fortunes, the events of recent weeks may have buoyed them. In early August, Democrats in Congress passed a mammoth bill on climate change, health care, and taxes. Though the Inflation Reduction Act is by nature full of compromises, as my colleague Robinson Meyer notes, it “will touch every sector of the economy, subsidizing massive new investments in renewable and geothermal energy, as well as nuclear power and carbon capture and removal, and encouraging new clean-energy manufacturing industries to develop in the United States.” Demings has contrasted her own legislative record with that of Rubio, who has one of the worst attendance records in the Senate. With Congress showing that it can actually function, voters might be more receptive to that argument.
Demings watches the House Intelligence Committee’s impeachment hearings in 2019. (Damon Winter/The New York Times/Redux)
Demings likes to say she’s living the American dream. In 1957, when she was born, her family lived in a three-room shack in Mandarin, Florida—a rural part of Duval County, just south of Jacksonville. Her father worked as a janitor, and her mother was a housekeeper. A year later, they upgraded to a two-bedroom house, but the roof leaked and for several years it lacked working bathrooms.
In the sixth grade, Demings helped integrate Loretta Elementary School, which she used to ride past to get to the Black elementary school 15 miles away. Shortly after enrolling, Demings was chosen to serve on the school patrol. She loved it. “You had to have good citizenship and good grades—and I was selected. I had my little orange belt, and I just fell in love,” she told me in July. “It was such an honor to be selected, because it was a big deal.”
As soon as she was old enough to get a real job, she did: first washing dishes at a retirement home, and later working fast-food gigs. After high school, she went off to Florida State University to study criminology, with an eye toward becoming a lawyer. “My dad used to say, ‘You’re a pretty good talker. You need to make some money talking,’ and he thought being a lawyer was a pretty cool thing,” she said. But scraping her way through college meant she needed a job—not law school—after graduation. “I was broke broke,” she quipped. So she moved back to Jacksonville, where she became a social worker with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. But she soon grew disillusioned, doubting how much good she’d ever be able to do with so little power.
“I had this 10-year-old boy on my caseload,” Demings said. “He started having some problems, exhibiting behavior that made him really a threat to himself.” She went to her supervisor to see if she could get a psychological evaluation for him, but was told it would be roughly three weeks before a referral could be made; the panel that made those decisions met only once a month.
Demings was shocked. “This kid would be dead by then,” she recalled telling her boss. So she went around her supervisor to the juvenile judge—waiting outside his chambers until she was able to plead his case. To Demings’s relief, the judge granted an emergency order. She saw it as a small victory in a tough system, until it backfired: Demings was reprimanded by her supervisor for subverting their structure. She felt deflated by the experience, and began to think about what she wanted to do next.
In 1983, Demings got word that the Orlando Police Department was recruiting at Edward Waters College, the historically Black college in Jacksonville, and she figured that she would go down to speak with someone. That ultimately led to a 27-year career at the department, where Demings worked her way through its ranks: patrol officer, juvenile-crime detective, community-relations officer, public-information officer, hostage negotiator, then supervisor of the patrol, investigations, and airport units. (Some aspects of her career were less deliberate: She always told herself that she’d never date a fellow officer—then she ended up marrying one.)
As a police captain, she developed a reputation as a tough-on-crime enforcer on everything from traffic violations to violent infractions. “The message has to be clear for the violators: There are no deals,” she said in 2005 after a string of dangerous-driving incidents.
But that approach, which continued after she was promoted to deputy chief, drew criticism from members of the Black community in the city. She was lambasted after an Orlando Sentinelstory examined the department’s overuse of tasers and aggressive traffic stops and she told the paper that her officers were “kicking butt” in the historically Black neighborhood of Parramore. “If that [vehicle or pedestrian] stop results in something greater and leads to drugs or drug paraphernalia, I call that good police work,” she said at the time.
Still, by late 2007, her policing record, and a succession of departures, led to her being selected as Orlando’s chief of police. She was the first woman and second Black person—after her husband, Jerry, who left that role in 2002 to become the county’s public-safety director—to lead the department.
From the start, she took an aggressive approach to the job. “We will be courteous to law-abiding citizens but relentless in our efforts to disrupt violent criminals who have no respect for the police, citizens or their property,” she wrote in a New Year’s Day Orlando Sentinel op-ed in 2008. Later that year, Jerry won his race for county sheriff, making the duo the first Black husband and wife to serve as sheriff and chief of police in the same county at the same time.
Demings often cites the fact that under her leadership, Orlando experienced a 40 percent drop in violent crime. But a string of excessive-force complaints—including a 2010 incident in which an officer broke an 84-year-old man’s neck by flipping him upside down—revealed some of the clear dangers of the aggressive policing tactics that were employed during her tenure. “Apparently it’s perfectly acceptable to break old men’s necks for no reason,” John Kurtz, the founder of the blog Orlando CopWatch, said at the time. Demings initially defended the officer’s actions in the incident, but eventually modified the department’s use of the technique that led to the octogenarian’s fractured vertebrae. In 2011, after 27 years with the department, Demings stepped down and set her sights on a new challenge.
Elected office wasn’t something Demings had initially been interested in. But as she was about to retire, Mayor Buddy Dyer called her to let her know that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee thought she would be a good candidate to run for the House seat that represented Orlando. “I just burst out laughing,” she told me. “And the mayor’s like, ‘Chief, are you okay?’” She thought he must have been joking. “You know your police chief. I’m a little rough around the edges,” she recalls telling him. “And I don’t know if I’d make a good politician.” Still, she met with Representative Steve Israel, who was the committee chair at the time—and ultimately decided that running for Congress was a logical next step.
She lost her first campaign and suspended another run for mayor two years later. But her defeats only raised her public profile. By 2016, court-ordered redistricting meant that the Tenth District was significantly more Democratic than it had been when she first ran for office—which meant that her biggest hurdle would be her primary opponent. She won 57 percent of the vote in a four-person primary—and received 15,000 more votes than her nearest competitor. She then won in the general election by nearly 100,000 votes.
Thirty-three years after Demings had packed everything she owned in the trunk of her Oldsmobile Firenza and headed to Orlando for her new job with the police department, she would be taking her tough-on-crime bona fides to Washington.
Across two terms, Demings has sponsored or co-sponsored dozens of bills that have become law—though a divided Congress means she does not have a signature piece of legislation to hang her hat on. But her most significant moment came when, in January 2020, she served as an impeachment manager during the first Senate trial of then-President Donald Trump. Though the Senate ultimately acquitted Trump—voting along party lines except for the sole defection of Senator Mitt Romney—Demings’s prominence continued to grow. She was profiled by The Washington Post,NPR,and other national outlets. “Was it worth it? Every day it has been worth it,” she said of the trial after its conclusion. “Just like when I was a law enforcement officer, when I saw someone breaking the law, I did not stop and think about, well, my goodness, what will the judge do? … I did my job to stop that threat and then go to court and plead my case.”
After that, she landed on Biden’s shortlist for vice president—evidence of both her meteoric rise and the Democratic Party’s relentless search for its next phenom who can capture the national imagination the way Barack Obama did.
Demings makes phone calls to constituents from the Pinellas County Democratic headquarters in Florida. (Octavio Jones / Getty)
“Florida, vota por la jefa de la policía, no por el politiquero,” Demings’s first Spanish-language ad, aired in June, said. Vote for the chief of police, not the politician. Demings is trying to define herself for voters she hopes will form her coalition—particularly the Latino voters who have been tilting Republican in recent years She’s on the defensive: The Rubio campaign has tried to pin the Democratic Party’s most left-wing sensibilities on her.
In a campaign ad of his own, Rubio touts his endorsement from Florida’s Fraternal Order of Police and 55 sheriffs, and suggests that Demings supported the “Defund the Police” movement—or, at the very least, did not reject it fiercely enough. “Senator Rubio has not only tried not to defund the police; he’s defended the police,” Al Palacio, the Miami Dade public-schools Fraternal Order of Police president, says in the ad. “And we’re here to defend him.” Rubio’s campaign believes that this is a winning issue; an October 2021 Pew Research Center survey found that 47 percent of Americans want to see more spending on police, compared with 15 percent who would like to see budgets reduced.
Demings dismissed the ad out of hand, responding with a brief statement: “I am the police. This is ridiculous.”
Though Florida has not seen the same jumps in crime rates as some other parts of the country over the past two years, the race has focused on policing and crime issues. The irony is, were she running as a Republican, Demings would be seen as emblematic of the tough-on-crime policies some voters say they want.
But because she’s running in a state that is turning redder and redder, Demings has to strike the right balance of being the police enforcer she’s always been while appearing open to reform, and being unrelentingly liberal on issues such as access to abortion while emphasizing her Christian faith so as not to isolate Catholic voters. And she has to highlight her identity—her family’s economic status growing up and, perhaps most important, her race—while not making it the central plank of her campaign. Over the past several years, Florida Republicans have passed laws that limit discussions of identity in classrooms and other public spaces—a bit of a contrast with the political campaign Demings has run, explaining to voters how being a Black woman has shaped her life and informed her policy preferences.
That’s been a difficult sell: How do you convince voters that you’ll be a senator who can get stuff done if the Democrats can manage to keep their Senate majority, when the Democrats had—at least in the public’s view—gotten so little done? But with the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, the party’s chances look different now, and maybe, just maybe, Demings will be the beneficiary. If Demings pulls off an upset, it will be not solely because she’s a Black woman, but because the Democrats finally figured out how to rack up some wins in D.C. And what could be a greater crowd-pleaser than that?
