FIRST ON FOX: A top House Republican is questioning the Department of Justice about what he says is “apparent coordination” with left-wing civil rights groups over its lawsuits against two Republican-led states over efforts to remove non-citizens from its voter rolls.

“The Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government is conducting oversight of the apparent coordination between the Civil Rights Division and left-wing advocacy groups to impede the ability of states to ensure the accuracy of their voter rolls,” Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, who is chairman of the subcommittee, says in a letter obtained by Fox Digital.

The Department of Justice sued Alabama and Virginia in recent months over their moves to remove non-citizens from the voter rolls. The DOJ has claimed that the states have violated clauses that say states must complete their maintenance program no later than 90 days before an election under a clause known as the Quiet Period Provision.

VIRGINIA AG CHEERS SUPREME COURT RULING AS ‘HUGE WIN’ FOR ELECTION INTEGRITY

“This systematic voter removal program, which the State is conducting within 90 days of the upcoming federal election, violates the Quiet Period Provision,” the DOJ said as it filed suit against Virginia. 

Virginia has insisted that the state’s process is “individualized” and conducted in accordance with state and federal law. A lower court ordered 1,600 individuals to be restored to the voter rolls, but that has since been blocked by the Supreme Court.

The DOJ sued Alabama on similar grounds, alleging that changes to the voter registration lists took place 84 days before Election Day.

“The right to vote is one of the most sacred rights in our democracy,” Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division said in a statement. “As Election Day approaches, it is critical that Alabama redress voter confusion resulting from its list maintenance mailings sent in violation of federal law.”

But Roy says the lawsuits from the DOJ came after lawsuits by left-wing civil rights groups. In the letter, Roy says that the Sept. 27 Alabama lawsuit came weeks after a Sept. 13 lawsuit from a coalition of left-wing civil rights groups. The cases were consolidated on Sept. 28.

In Virginia, a civil rights lawsuit was filed on Oct. 7, and the DOJ filed its lawsuit on Oct. 11. 

SUPREME COURT TEMPORARILY HALTS LOWER COURT RULING ORDERING 1,600 VOTERS BACK ON VIRGINIA VOTER ROLLS

“The cases involve the same or similar plaintiffs and lawyers and follow a similar pattern with respect to the timing of each complaint. These circumstances raise questions as to whether the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division is working with these groups to file cases to keep noncitizens on voter rolls just before the 2024 election and prevent states from ensuring that only eligible citizens vote in federal elections,” Roy says.

He also says the DOJ “did not object to consolidating its cases with those filed by left-wing organizations and attorneys with a public history of opposing bipartisan efforts to prevent noncitizens from voting.”

Roy says many of the groups have objected to the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which would require proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections. 

26 REPUBLICAN ATTORNEYS GENERAL JOIN VIRGINIA IN PETITIONING SUPREME COURT TO RULE ON VOTER ROLL

“The American people deserve to know whether left-wing activist groups are dictating the DOJ’s legal strategy with respect to noncitizens voting in the upcoming election,” he writes.

Roy is asking for all documents and communications relating to the lawsuits and any of the civil rights groups involved in the suits, as well as documents to show whether the DOJ plans to file any additional lawsuits against the states.

Virginia was handed a legal victory this week when the Supreme Court halted the lower court’s decision to reinstate 1,600 potential noncitizens to the rolls. A divided court granted the state’s stay application pending appeal in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. 

The DOJ said in a statement Wednesday after the Supreme Court’s ruling, “The Department brought this suit to ensure that every eligible American citizen can vote in our elections. We disagree with the Supreme Court’s order.”

Fox News’ Haley Chi-Sing contributed to this report.

Josh Riley, the Democratic challenger running for Congress in New York’s 19th District, has a clear message on abortion: “I believe that women’s health care decisions are women’s health care decisions and that politicians should stay the hell out of it.”

And his Republican opponent, the incumbent Representative Marc Molinaro, is saying nearly the same thing: “I believe health care decisions should be between a woman and her doctor, not Washington.”

Across the country’s most competitive House races, Republicans have spent months trying to redefine themselves on abortion, going so far as to borrow language that would not feel out of place at a rally of Vice President Kamala Harris. Many Republicans who until recently backed federal abortion restrictions are now saying the issue should be left to the states.

At least a half-dozen Republican candidates have put out direct-to-camera ads declaring their opposition to a federal abortion ban. Instead, they say, they support exceptions to existing state laws and back protections for reproductive health care, such as I.V.F.

Republican candidates address abortion head-on in campaign videos

Click on any video in the grid to play it.

Anthony D’Esposito

Republican, N.Y. 4

Advertisement

Mike Lawler

Republican, N.Y. 17

Advertisement

Marc Molinaro

Republican, N.Y. 19

Joe Kent

Advertisement

Republican, Wash. 3

Michelle Steel

Republican, C.A. 45

Advertisement

Juan Ciscomani

Republican, Ariz. 6

Advertisement

Democrats have raised the possibility of a nationwide abortion ban should Republicans win in November, and they are framing the campaign as another referendum on the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade. They are hoping to continue their run of electoral successes since the 2022 decision to win back control of the House.

Any new federal legislation on abortion would have to pass both the House and the Senate and be signed by the president to become law. But whichever party emerges with a majority in the House will have the ability to dictate the legislative agenda, including whether measures to restrict or expand abortion access have the chance to pass.

Republicans in California and New York in particular, who are running in swing districts in blue states that favor abortion rights, have felt the most pressure to address the issue directly. “If we don’t talk about the issue, we become whatever the Democrats say we are,” said Will Reinert, the press secretary for the National Republican Congressional Committee.

To better understand how abortion is playing a role in these campaigns, The New York Times surveyed candidates from both parties in the most competitive House races about their support for federal limits on abortion. The Times also looked at voting records, issues listed on campaign websites, debate and media coverage, and endorsements from major abortion rights and anti-abortion groups.

The Times survey showed that while Republicans are notably focused on what they will not do on abortion at the federal level, their Democratic opponents are talking about what they will do to protect abortion rights. Nearly all the Democratic candidates said they supported restoring the protections of Roe v. Wade, which would allow access to abortion until fetal viability, or around 24 weeks, in every state.

In attack ads, Democrats are pointing to their opponents’ voting records or past statements as evidence of extremism — despite what they may be saying now.

Democratic candidates highlight Republicans’ records on abortion in campaign videos

Click on any video in the grid to play it.

Advertisement

Josh Riley campaign

Democrat, N.Y. 19

Will Rollins campaign

Advertisement

Democrat, Calif. 41

More broadly, abortion rights groups said Republicans are misleading voters by claiming they do not support an outright abortion “ban,” when they might support a federal “limit” or “standard,” such as the 15-week proposal put forward by Senator Lindsey Graham in 2022.

“They are playing around with the semantics; they are clearly testing out different framing and messaging in an attempt to try and deceive voters because they realize how politically unpopular their policy stances are,” said Jessica Arons, a director of policy and government affairs at the American Civil Liberties Union.

Republicans in the Times survey almost universally declined to answer questions about gestational limits. Only one, Representative Don Bacon of Nebraska, said he supported a specific federal limit, in the third trimester.

The Republican shift away from publicly supporting a federal ban follows the lead of former President Donald J. Trump, who has changed his own language on the issue after seeing the electoral backlash to the Dobbs decision.

As recently as 2021, a majority of House Republicans — including seven incumbents in this year’s tossup races — co-sponsored the Life at Conception Act, a bill that would have amounted to a nationwide abortion ban. This year, Representative Scott Perry of Pennsylvania’s 10th District was the only incumbent in a competitive race to stay on as a co-sponsor.

Two Republican incumbents who now say they oppose a national ban — Representatives Ken Calvert and David Valadao in California — voted in favor of a 20-week ban that passed the House in 2017. Representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks, an Iowa Republican, co-sponsored a 15-week ban on abortion in 2022. She did not respond to questions about whether she still supports it.

Other Republicans described themselves as personally “pro-life” but said they accepted the abortion laws in place in their states. Rob Bresnahan Jr., a challenger in Pennsylvania’s 8th District, said he supported the state’s current law, which allows abortion until 24 weeks.

Democrats, when they were not attacking Republicans, leaned into language about personal freedom, with many in the survey saying the government should not be involved in medical decisions.

Another common refrain was that the decision to have an abortion should be “between a woman and her doctor.” Two Democrats used similar language rather than explicitly calling for federal abortion protections.

By appearing to moderate their stance on abortion, candidates have risked losing the backing of prominent advocacy groups. Only three Republicans in the tossup races received an endorsement from Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, and seven received one from National Right to Life.

Two major abortion rights groups, by contrast, endorsed nearly all the Democratic candidates. Planned Parenthood — whose political action fund is pouring $40 million into the campaign — endorsed all but six candidates, while Reproductive Freedom for All endorsed all but four.

Representative Jared Golden, the Democratic incumbent in Maine’s 2nd Congressional District — an area Mr. Trump won by six points in 2020 — did not get Planned Parenthood’s endorsement this year. He said the reason was his vote for the 2024 defense policy bill, which included an amendment blocking reimbursement for abortion travel costs for service members.

Mr. Golden said he was not concerned about the lack of support from the group, pointing instead to his co-sponsorship of the Women’s Health Protection Act, a bill to restore the protections of Roe.

“I’m quite confident that voters in Maine know where I stand,” he said.