DOJ is suing states for sensitive voter data − an election law scholar explains why federal efforts are facing resistanc
The Department of Justice is suing states for sensitive voter data − an election law scholar explains why federal efforts are facing resistance
Published: April 1, 2026 8:49am EDT
John J. Martin
Assistant Professor of Law, Quinnipiac University
(The Conversation) In May 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice began sending letters to state governments demanding copies of statewide voter registration lists. The request was unprecedented: It demanded not only publicly available voter data, such as names and addresses, but also sensitive information, including drivers license and Social Security numbers.
That data is considered highly sensitive because it can be used to commit identity theft, access financial or government records, and facilitate targeted harassment or intimidation, particularly if the data were mishandled or leaked.
....(snip)....
States have responded in a variety of ways. Some have fully complied with the requests, some partially complied, and many outright refused to provide any voter information. For the latter states, the Trump administration has taken the fight to court and sued to get the information, claiming that federal law requires the states to hand it over.
....(snip)....
Link to tweet
In the 29 targeted states, federal courts have thus far dismissed four lawsuits in California, Georgia, Michigan and Oregon. Oklahoma, as noted above, has settled its case with the DOJ. While the remaining lawsuits have yet to fully play out, the DOJ likely faces less-than-sympathetic judges in these cases. ....................(more)
https://theconversation.com/the-department-of-justice-is-suing-states-for-sensitive-voter-data-an-election-law-scholar-explains-why-federal-efforts-are-facing-resistance-278512
FakeNoose
(41,852 posts)Josh Shapiro was our Attorney General before he ran for Governor, and he's been fighting this since Chump 1.0.
LetMyPeopleVote
(180,434 posts)I am still pissed that Texas gave trump all of Texas' voter information. The trump DOJ has sued 20+ states trying to get these records and so far has not won any of these lawsuits. In these lawsuits, the DOJ never really states why they really need these records. trump's voting by mail executive order is clearly the reason for these lawsuits.
Trump acknowledged in his executive order that he "directs DHS to create a nationwide voter registration database.â
— Evie (@evie55.bsky.social) 2026-04-03T20:06:48.463Z
Trump may have accidentally torpedoed his own bid to seize voter rolls: analyst
www.rawstory.com/trump-voting...
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-voting-2676662305/
That's because this order could also undermine one of the main arguments Trump's Justice Department has used in court to defend the lawsuits filed against dozens of states to seize their voting rolls.
"In those lawsuits, the DOJ has claimed it needs millions of voters private sensitive data in order to ensure the states are complying with federal laws that require states to take steps to ensure accurate rolls," said the report. "But outside of court, DOJ officials like Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon have undermined that claim by boasting that the state voter records theyve already obtained have been used to verify citizenship status using the Department of Homeland Securitys (DHS) Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program."
After judges began ruling against the lawsuits on these grounds, DOJ officials backpedaled somewhat and said there was no plan to help the Department of Homeland Security build a national database of voters.
Trump, however, may have blown that excuse by outright acknowledging in his executive order that he "directs DHS to create a nationwide voter registration database," noted the report.
"Along with Dhillons statements and Trumps orders, the DOJs courtroom attestations have been impeached repeatedly," wrote Saksa. For example, "last week, CBS reported that DOJ and DHS were working to formalize a data-sharing agreement for the voter rolls. And on the same day Tucker was assuring a federal judge that the DOJ wouldnt share state records with DHS, Eric Neff, acting chief of the DOJs Voting Rights Section, admitted to another judge in Rhode Island that they, in fact, would."
trump's DOJ/DHS really want a nationwide voter database with a ton of confidential information. This database would be used to enforce trump's voter id executive order. It will be fun seeing trump's executive order being cited in these lawsuits.
LetMyPeopleVote
(180,434 posts)I am still pissed that Abbott gave trump all of Texas' voter data. trump needs these voter records to do his database of voters. trump has filed 30 of these lawsuits and have lost everyone so far. I am glad that the courts have repeatedly rejected these lawsuits
Link to tweet
https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/trump-doj-now-0-for-5-on-voter-roll-cases-as-court-rejects-massachusetts-lawsuit/
Since President Donald Trump returned to office, the DOJ demanded unfettered access to every states voter registration records as part of the administrations obsessive focus on immigration enforcement. While 17 Republican-led states have complied, the rest have refused, leading the DOJ to sue 29 states and Washington, D.C. for their voter rolls.
But when the DOJ demanded Massachusetts voter data, which includes sensitive information like social security numbers and dates of birth, it failed to explain why as required by the 1960 Civil Rights Act (CRA), District Court Judge Leo Sorokin noted in his opinion.*
The United States complaint fails for the simple reason that the Attorney Generals demand did not comply with Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the statute on which it purports to rely, Sorokin wrote. Here, the Attorney General offered no basisnoneand the demand was therefore facially inadequate.
Under the CRA, the DOJ can request copies of state voter records to ensure compliance with federal laws, provided that the agency also provides a basis and purpose for the demand. In state after state, the DOJ failed to explicitly do that, leading to their losses in California and Oregon. A Trump-appointed judge in Michigan also ruled against the DOJs demands on separate legal grounds. Sorokin cited all of those cases in his ruling.