Trump Administration’s Voter Roll Demands Rejected by Courts in 23 Cases
Washington — The Trump administration has made a sweeping push to obtain complete, unredacted voter registration lists from nearly every state in the country, demanding access to sensitive personal information about registered voters. The Justice Department says the records are needed to enforce the Help America Vote Act and the National Voter Registration Act, two federal laws designed to ensure that states maintain accurate and current voter rolls. But the effort has produced a wave of litigation that so far has mostly gone against the federal government.
Last year, the administration sent letters to most states requesting unredacted electronic copies of their statewide voter registration databases. Those databases contain far more than the names and addresses typically found in public voter rolls. They also include voters’ exact birthdates, partial Social Security numbers, driver’s license numbers and other identifying details. Many states treat that data as confidential under state law and release only redacted versions to the public, campaigns and researchers.
A number of states responded by turning over their publicly available voter lists, but refused to provide the complete versions. The Justice Department was not satisfied and filed lawsuits against 30 states and the District of Columbia, seeking court orders to force the states to comply.
The results have been a striking series of setbacks for the administration. According to court records and legal analysts, federal judges have rejected the Justice Department’s demands in at least 23 cases so far. Some courts have ruled that the federal government’s request goes beyond what the voting laws permit. Others have said that states have already demonstrated adequate compliance. Several judges have also cited privacy concerns, noting that the requested data could be misused if it fell into the wrong hands.
One of the earliest cases, against Georgia, was dismissed because the Justice Department filed it in the wrong federal court. The government has since refiled the case. In Oklahoma, the Justice Department voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit after the state entered into an agreement to turn over its voter registration list. The Oklahoma attorney general announced the settlement in March, saying it would protect sensitive voter data while resolving the federal government’s concerns.
The remaining active cases are pending in Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Utah, Vermont and Washington. At least seven states are still litigating against the administration, and the outcome of those cases could have significant consequences for election administration across the country.
The Justice Department has appealed most of the decisions that have gone against it. So far, only one appellate court has issued a ruling on the merits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld a lower court decision rejecting the administration’s attempt to obtain Michigan’s voter rolls. That ruling is seen as an important legal precedent, at least within the states covered by the 6th Circuit, and could influence how other appeals are resolved.
The push for voter roll data is part of a larger effort by President Trump to increase federal control over elections, an area traditionally governed by the states under the U.S. Constitution. Mr. Trump has already signed two executive orders aimed at election procedures, and both have been blocked by the courts. The first executive order, signed last year, would require documentary proof of citizenship for anyone registering to vote. The second, announced in March, would tighten rules for mail-in voting and would require the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Postal Service to compile and maintain lists of U.S. citizens eligible to vote. Both orders are currently the subject of legal challenges.
Mr. Trump is also pressing Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, a legislative package that would significantly curtail mail-in voting and impose new voter identification requirements. Supporters of the measure argue that it would restore confidence in elections and prevent fraud. Opponents say it would make it harder for elderly people, students, people with disabilities and members of the military to vote.
The president has long claimed, without presenting evidence, that mail-in voting is plagued by widespread fraud. He has also alleged that Democratic-led states allow noncitizens to vote in U.S. elections, something that is already a federal crime and that election officials and independent researchers say is almost nonexistent. Federal law prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections, and convictions can result in prison time and deportation for those who are not U.S. citizens.
State officials and voting rights advocates have criticized the administration’s demands for unredacted voter rolls as an invasion of privacy and an attempt to intimidate voters. They note that the information sought by the Justice Department could be used for identity theft, surveillance or other harmful purposes. Several states have enacted laws specifically shielding such data from public disclosure, and state attorneys general have defended those laws in court.
The legal disputes have created a complicated patchwork of rulings across the country. In some states, judges have dismissed the Justice Department’s cases outright. In others, the litigation remains ongoing. The federal government has not indicated that it plans to abandon its efforts, and its appeals could ultimately reach the Supreme Court.
The cases have also exposed a rift among states over how to respond. Some states have chosen to fight the requests in court, while others have agreed to limited cooperation or reached settlements. That uneven response has made it difficult for courts to establish a uniform rule and has left voters in different parts of the country with different levels of protection for their personal information.
The outcome of these cases will likely determine how much access the federal government has to state voter registration systems in the future. If the administration succeeds, it could open the door to routine federal collection of sensitive personal information from every registered voter in the country. If it continues to lose, states will retain greater control over their own voter rolls and the privacy of their residents.
Legal experts say the central question in the litigation is whether the Help America Vote Act and the National Voter Registration Act give the Justice Department the authority to demand unredacted voter data from states. The laws require states to keep their voter rolls accurate and to remove ineligible voters, but they do not explicitly say that federal officials can collect every piece of personal data contained in those rolls. Courts have generally interpreted the laws narrowly, which has worked in the states’ favor.
The administration’s legal strategy has also been complicated by the fact that many states have shown a willingness to cooperate with federal audits using redacted information. Federal officials, however, have insisted that they need the full data, including birth dates and Social Security numbers, to properly verify that states are removing dead or ineligible voters and not purging eligible voters improperly.
For now, the fight continues. With more than 20 court losses, several pending appeals and a growing number of executive actions and legislative proposals, the battle over voter rolls has become one of the most contentious election-law disputes in decades. It touches on fundamental questions about the balance of power between Washington and the states, the privacy rights of voters and the integrity of American elections. The next few months will be critical, as appellate courts weigh in and the Supreme Court may be asked to resolve the issue once and for all.
