Listen to the article
DOJ Expands Legal Battle for Voter Data, Sues Five More States
The Department of Justice expanded its campaign for access to state voter rolls on Thursday, filing lawsuits against five additional states—Utah, Oklahoma, Kentucky, West Virginia, and New Jersey. The move escalates the Trump administration’s unprecedented push to gain federal oversight of election data traditionally managed at the state level.
With these new legal actions, the DOJ has now sued more than two dozen states, primarily those under Democratic control, though the latest batch includes four states President Donald Trump carried in recent presidential elections.
“We will not be deterred, regardless of party affiliation, from carrying out critical election integrity legal duties,” stated Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon. She suggested state officials were “choosing to fight us in court rather than show their work” by providing access to voter rolls.
The DOJ’s demands have sparked significant controversy as the department seeks unredacted voter files containing sensitive personal data, including drivers’ license numbers and partial Social Security numbers. While states typically provide redacted voter information to government agencies and the public, the administration’s request for complete, unfiltered access has raised privacy concerns.
Attorney General Pam Bondi defended the actions, saying, “Accurate, well-maintained voter rolls are a requisite for the election integrity that the American people deserve.” She added that the lawsuits demonstrate the DOJ’s commitment to “ensure transparency, voter roll maintenance, and secure elections across the country.”
State officials have pushed back forcefully against what they view as federal overreach. Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson stated, “Neither state nor federal law entitles the Department of Justice to collect private information on law-abiding American citizens.” She emphasized her office would “always follow the Constitution and the law, protect voters’ rights, and administer free and fair elections.”
Kentucky Secretary of State Michael Adams similarly criticized the legal action, highlighting Kentucky’s elections as “a national success story” while refusing to “voluntarily commit a data breach by providing Kentuckians’ personal data to the federal bureaucracy unless a court order tells me to.”
The Trump administration’s legal arguments center on the Civil Rights Act of 1960, which allows the attorney general to request voter records from election officials. However, state leaders contend that the Constitution clearly delegates election administration to the states, not the federal government.
This legal campaign comes amid broader efforts by the administration to exert federal control over elections. Earlier this month, the FBI executed a search warrant at an election office in Fulton County, Georgia, seizing ballots and other voting records from the 2020 election.
The president has also urged Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, which would require voters in federal elections to prove citizenship by providing photo identification and additional documentation such as a passport or birth certificate.
The conflict highlights fundamental tensions between federal oversight and state autonomy in election administration. While the DOJ frames its efforts as ensuring election integrity, state officials from both parties view the lawsuits as an unprecedented expansion of federal authority over state-run elections.
As these cases move through the courts, they will likely establish important precedents about the balance of power between federal and state governments in managing elections and protecting voter data. The outcome could substantially reshape American election administration for years to come.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
16 Comments
The DOJ’s actions seem quite heavy-handed and politically charged. While election integrity is crucial, their demands for unredacted voter data raise serious privacy concerns. I hope the courts can provide a more balanced, principled solution.
Absolutely. This is a delicate issue that requires nuance, not partisan posturing. Hopefully cooler heads can prevail and find an approach that upholds democratic norms and individual liberties.
Hmm, this is a complex and sensitive issue. I want to see more specifics on the DOJ’s legal justifications and the states’ privacy concerns before forming a firm opinion. Hopefully the courts can find a reasonable compromise.
Well said. Both sides have valid points that deserve careful consideration. The outcome will have major implications for election administration and individual rights.
This seems like a highly contentious issue around balancing federal oversight and state election management. I’d want to see more details on the DOJ’s rationale and the states’ concerns before forming an opinion.
Reasonable points. Transparency and data integrity are important, but privacy rights must also be respected. It will be interesting to see how the courts navigate this complex challenge.
Interesting to see the DOJ targeting both Democratic and Republican-led states on this issue. I’d want to understand more about the specific data they’re seeking and how it would be used to assess the merits of their position.
Good point. Nonpartisan oversight is ideal, but the DOJ’s methods seem heavy-handed. Hopefully the courts can find a reasonable compromise that upholds democratic principles.
Hmm, the DOJ’s actions seem quite aggressive and concerning. I worry this could set a precedent for federal overreach into state election processes. Are there clear legal justifications, or is this more about politics than policy?
That’s a fair question. The DOJ claims it’s about election integrity, but many see it as a partisan power play. This is a delicate balance that requires careful consideration of all sides.
This feels like another flashpoint in the ongoing battle over election administration and integrity. I hope both sides can set aside partisan agendas and focus on constructive solutions that protect the electoral process.
Well said. Voter access and security are critical, but so are individual privacy rights. This is a complex issue that deserves thoughtful, nuanced debate – not political grandstanding.
This is a tricky situation with valid arguments on both sides. The DOJ’s aggressive litigation tactics are concerning, but election integrity is also crucial. I hope the courts can carefully weigh the competing interests and reach a fair, measured conclusion.
Well said. This is exactly the kind of complex, high-stakes issue that requires thoughtful, impartial adjudication – not political grandstanding. The outcome will have major ramifications, so I hope the process is as fair and transparent as possible.
The DOJ’s aggressive litigation strategy is concerning. While election integrity is important, their demands for sensitive voter data seem overly broad and potentially invasive. I hope the courts can provide a measured, balanced approach.
Agreed. This is a tricky balance to strike. Both sides need to act in good faith and prioritize the integrity of the electoral process over partisan interests.