The Justice Department under the Trump administration has launched lawsuits against 25 state election officials, primarily in Democratic-led states, seeking access to voter roll information. However, resistance is emerging from Republican election officials as well, who have raised concerns about the Justice Department’s demands for sensitive voter registration data. These data requests include confidential details such as Social Security numbers, driver’s license IDs, and current residential addresses.
At least six Republican-led state offices have denied the Justice Department’s requests for non-public voter data. For example, West Virginia Secretary of State Kris Warner stated, “They can have the voter rolls. They’re gonna pay for it like everybody else. They’re not going to get our personal information.” Several other GOP officials have complied with providing sensitive data but declined to sign a Memorandum of Understanding that would require states to remove voters deemed ineligible by the Justice Department.
Republican election administrators have consistently voiced concerns about the Justice Department’s approach despite broadly agreeing on the importance of election security. Their objections include conflicts with state privacy laws, skepticism regarding the federal government’s role in managing voter rolls, and doubts about the necessity of the data requested. These officials stress that maintaining voter rolls is a state responsibility, reflecting the Constitution’s design for election administration. Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson emphasized, “We were adamant on the idea that maintaining voter rolls should be done on the state level.”
The Justice Department has remained firm on its data collection plans, with Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon dismissing concerns about the sensitivity of information such as Social Security numbers. Dhillon argued that sharing such information with the federal government is common, stating, “People routinely give it out on a daily basis when they go to the doctor or the DMV.” Despite Dhillon’s public statements hinting at upcoming lawsuits against states that resist compliance, no new voter roll cases have been filed since mid-January.
Privacy laws at the state level present significant legal challenges to the Justice Department’s efforts. Some courts have already rejected the DOJ’s claim that federal statutes override state protections for voter data. Oklahoma State Election Board Secretary Paul Ziriax and Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins both cited these laws in refusing to provide confidential voter information without a court order. Ziriax noted that “If we could legally comply, we would promptly do so.”
Beyond legalities, election officials question the stated intents behind the data requests. The Justice Department indicated plans to cross-reference state voter rolls with the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program, a federal database for verifying immigration status. While some states voluntarily use the SAVE system to identify noncitizen voters, officials warn it frequently produces false positives, mistakenly labeling naturalized citizens as ineligible voters.
The Justice Department’s proposed agreement would require states to fix identified problems within 45 days, a deadline many election officials find impractical given local procedures for voter roll maintenance. Watson explained that in Mississippi, voter removals are handled by county clerks and must adhere to state law, which requires careful, time-consuming processes. The tight federal timeline clashes with the practical realities of running elections at the state and local levels.
Additional skepticism arises from fears that the voter data could be misused for political advantage or immigration enforcement. A Republican election official expressed concern that refusal to share data might later be framed as evidence of electoral fraud if Republicans perform poorly in upcoming elections. This mistrust adds to the reluctance among some officials to comply fully with the Justice Department’s requests.
The escalation began with general inquiry letters last spring, which evolved into demands for confidential data by fall. Many states initially complied with providing publicly available voter information but balked when asked for sensitive personal details. In response, the DOJ issued a Memorandum of Understanding promising adherence to federal privacy laws while emphasizing federal control over the voter roll review process. Still, only Alaska and Texas have signed this agreement, while about a dozen states have provided data without agreeing to the terms.
As of December, the Justice Department intensified its pressure with short deadlines and follow-up communications threatening lawsuits. Eric Neff, head of DOJ’s voting section, warned Montana Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen that silence would be considered refusal to comply. Simultaneously, the DOJ filed numerous lawsuits targeting Democratic states for noncompliance, signaling a broader effort to assert federal authority over elections.
The ongoing tug-of-war between federal officials and Republican-led state election administrators highlights fundamental disagreements over election governance, data privacy, and the scope of federal power. These debates underscore tensions between efforts to combat alleged voter fraud and the legal and procedural realities of how elections are managed across the United States.
Read more at: www.cnn.com
