Justice Department expands legal action against states that have refused its demands for voter data

The Justice Department expanded its controversial voter data collection effort on Tuesday, filing lawsuits against six additional states for failing to provide detailed voter registration lists. Delaware, Maryland, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington now join at least eight other states facing similar legal challenges from federal authorities.

“Our federal elections laws ensure every American citizen may vote freely and fairly,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon of the department’s Civil Rights Division. “States that continue to defy federal voting laws interfere with our mission of ensuring that Americans have accurate voter lists as they go to the polls, that every vote counts equally, and that all voters have confidence in election results.”

The department has characterized these actions as necessary to ensure election security, but the campaign has triggered significant pushback from Democratic state officials who express serious concerns about data privacy and federal overreach into state election administration.

According to an Associated Press tally, the Justice Department has now requested voter data from at least 26 states, representing a significant escalation in federal involvement in state election processes. The Constitution traditionally grants states the authority to administer elections, with federal law providing specific protections for individual voter data.

The department’s information requests typically include questions about how states maintain voter rolls, including procedures for removing duplicate registrations and ineligible voters. However, the demands have gone beyond administrative protocols to include personally identifiable information such as voters’ names, birth dates, addresses, driver’s license numbers, and partial Social Security numbers.

Some states have provided redacted versions of their voter lists—information that is often publicly available anyway—but have balked at sharing more sensitive personal data. New Mexico’s Secretary of State’s office stated it had already supplied publicly available voter information but is legally prevented from turning over “personal private voter information.”

Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha offered a more pointed response, calling the lawsuit “the latest example of the weaponization of the Department of Justice to further the Trump administration’s unlawful whims.”

“We stand with and will defend the secretary, and win, because lawsuits concerning lawful conduct are largely unsuccessful,” Neronha said. “But I’m not surprised that this administration is confused about what it means to behave lawfully.”

The Justice Department’s aggressive pursuit of voter data comes amid President Trump’s continued focus on elections. Trump has repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of the 2020 election, which he lost to Joe Biden, and appears to be positioning for influence over the 2026 midterm elections.

The administration’s voter data initiative has sparked multiple countermeasures. Voting rights organizations have filed their own lawsuits against the administration, arguing that recent updates to federal citizenship verification tools could result in eligible voters being improperly purged from voter rolls.

Last month, ten Democratic secretaries of state formally requested additional information about the federal government’s voter data collection efforts. They specifically expressed concern that federal agencies may have misled them about how the data would be used and whether it would be entered into systems used for citizenship verification.

The debate highlights the growing tension between federal oversight and state authority in election administration. While the Justice Department maintains these actions are necessary to ensure election integrity, critics view them as potential threats to voter privacy and state sovereignty in election matters.

As legal challenges from both sides continue to unfold, the outcome will likely shape the relationship between federal and state governments in election administration for years to come, with significant implications for voter privacy, data security, and the constitutional balance of power in administering elections.