“Every state has a responsibility to ensure that voter registration records are accurate, accessible, and secure; states that don’t fulfill that obligation will see this Department of Justice in court.”
minute read
ADVERTISEMENT
The US Department of Justice announced Thursday that it has filed federal lawsuits against six states: California, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania, for refusing to provide statewide voter registration lists upon request.
“Clean voter rolls are the foundation of free and fair elections,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “Every state has a responsibility to ensure that voter registration records are accurate, accessible, and secure; states that don’t fulfill that obligation will see this Department of Justice in court.”
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon, who leads the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, emphasized the broader importance of the effort. “States are required to safeguard American elections by complying with our federal elections laws,” Dhillon said. “Clean voter rolls protect American citizens from voting fraud and abuse, and restore their confidence that their states’ elections are conducted properly, with integrity, and in compliance with the law.”
The new lawsuits come on the heels of earlier legal actions targeting Oregon and Maine, along with their Secretaries of State, for allegedly refusing to comply with federal voter registration requirements.
“States simply cannot pick and choose which federal laws they will comply with, including our voting laws, which ensure that all American citizens have equal access to the ballot in federal elections,” Dhillon said in announcing those suits. “American citizens have a right to feel confident in the integrity of our electoral process, and the refusal of certain states to protect their citizens against vote dilution will result in legal consequences.”
The lawsuit against Oregon and Secretary of State Tobias Read alleges violations of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), and the Civil Rights Act of 1960 (CRA). The Justice Department claims Oregon withheld a current unredacted electronic copy of its voter registration list, refused to disclose voter list maintenance procedures, and declined to provide data on ineligible voters. Oregon is especially notable because it pioneered universal vote-by-mail elections statewide in 2000, a system under which every registered voter automatically receives a ballot by mail.
The suit against Maine and Secretary of State Shenna Bellows makes similar claims, asserting that the state violated federal law by refusing to disclose details on removing ineligible voters and by declining to release an unredacted computerized voter registration list. Maine is not a full vote-by-mail state but does allow no-excuse absentee voting, with a significant share of ballots cast by mail. Both Oregon and Maine, according to the DOJ, previously provided identical information to a private organization while rejecting federal requests, a move federal officials say undermines transparency and violates federal election law.
Washington state has also been drawn into the dispute, though not yet sued. Secretary of State Steve Hobbs announced on September 23 that he would provide the DOJ with only the voter registration data already considered public under state law, while refusing to turn over protected personal information, such as the last four digits of Social Security numbers, driver’s license numbers, and full dates of birth, which he claimed are exempt from disclosure.
“As Washington state’s chief elections officer, I take my duty to protect voters and the sensitive information they entrust to the state very seriously,” Hobbs said. “While we will provide the DOJ with the voter registration data that state law already makes public, we will not compromise the privacy of Washington voters by turning over confidential information that both state and federal law prohibit us from disclosing.”
Hobbs also raised concerns about the Justice Department’s shifting explanations for why it wants access to state voter files, citing public reports that the DOJ may seek to create a national voter database or share records with other agencies for unauthorized purposes. Such use, Hobbs warned, could raise significant legal questions under the federal Privacy Act of 1974, which requires strict protections when creating or maintaining federal systems of records.
“Our office is committed to transparency and accountability in elections,” Hobbs said. “But transparency does not mean putting the personal information of every Washington voter at risk. The law is clear, and my responsibility is to the voters of this state.”
Across all eight cases, the Justice Department is invoking the NVRA, HAVA, and the CRA, which collectively empower the Attorney General to enforce voter registration laws, demand records, and ensure that states maintain accurate and accessible voter lists.
“Clean voter rolls are the foundation of free and fair elections,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “Every state has a responsibility to ensure that voter registration records are accurate, accessible, and secure; states that don’t fulfill that obligation will see this Department of Justice in court.”
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon, who leads the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, emphasized the broader importance of the effort. “States are required to safeguard American elections by complying with our federal elections laws,” Dhillon said. “Clean voter rolls protect American citizens from voting fraud and abuse, and restore their confidence that their states’ elections are conducted properly, with integrity, and in compliance with the law.”
The new lawsuits come on the heels of earlier legal actions targeting Oregon and Maine, along with their Secretaries of State, for allegedly refusing to comply with federal voter registration requirements.
“States simply cannot pick and choose which federal laws they will comply with, including our voting laws, which ensure that all American citizens have equal access to the ballot in federal elections,” Dhillon said in announcing those suits. “American citizens have a right to feel confident in the integrity of our electoral process, and the refusal of certain states to protect their citizens against vote dilution will result in legal consequences.”
The lawsuit against Oregon and Secretary of State Tobias Read alleges violations of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), and the Civil Rights Act of 1960 (CRA). The Justice Department claims Oregon withheld a current unredacted electronic copy of its voter registration list, refused to disclose voter list maintenance procedures, and declined to provide data on ineligible voters. Oregon is especially notable because it pioneered universal vote-by-mail elections statewide in 2000, a system under which every registered voter automatically receives a ballot by mail.
The suit against Maine and Secretary of State Shenna Bellows makes similar claims, asserting that the state violated federal law by refusing to disclose details on removing ineligible voters and by declining to release an unredacted computerized voter registration list. Maine is not a full vote-by-mail state but does allow no-excuse absentee voting, with a significant share of ballots cast by mail. Both Oregon and Maine, according to the DOJ, previously provided identical information to a private organization while rejecting federal requests, a move federal officials say undermines transparency and violates federal election law.
Washington state has also been drawn into the dispute, though not yet sued. Secretary of State Steve Hobbs announced on September 23 that he would provide the DOJ with only the voter registration data already considered public under state law, while refusing to turn over protected personal information, such as the last four digits of Social Security numbers, driver’s license numbers, and full dates of birth, which he claimed are exempt from disclosure.
“As Washington state’s chief elections officer, I take my duty to protect voters and the sensitive information they entrust to the state very seriously,” Hobbs said. “While we will provide the DOJ with the voter registration data that state law already makes public, we will not compromise the privacy of Washington voters by turning over confidential information that both state and federal law prohibit us from disclosing.”
Hobbs also raised concerns about the Justice Department’s shifting explanations for why it wants access to state voter files, citing public reports that the DOJ may seek to create a national voter database or share records with other agencies for unauthorized purposes. Such use, Hobbs warned, could raise significant legal questions under the federal Privacy Act of 1974, which requires strict protections when creating or maintaining federal systems of records.
“Our office is committed to transparency and accountability in elections,” Hobbs said. “But transparency does not mean putting the personal information of every Washington voter at risk. The law is clear, and my responsibility is to the voters of this state.”
Across all eight cases, the Justice Department is invoking the NVRA, HAVA, and the CRA, which collectively empower the Attorney General to enforce voter registration laws, demand records, and ensure that states maintain accurate and accessible voter lists.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign in to comment
Powered by The Post Millennial CMS™ Comments
Join and support independent free thinkers!
We’re independent and can’t be cancelled. The establishment media is increasingly dedicated to divisive cancel culture, corporate wokeism, and political correctness, all while covering up corruption from the corridors of power. The need for fact-based journalism and thoughtful analysis has never been greater. When you support The Post Millennial, you support freedom of the press at a time when it's under direct attack. Join the ranks of independent, free thinkers by supporting us today for as little as $1.
Remind me next month
To find out what personal data we collect and how we use it, please visit our Privacy Policy
Comments