A federal judge on Tuesday dealt a significant blow to the Trump administration's efforts to access detailed voter records, dismissing a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice against the state of Arizona. The ruling represents the latest in a series of legal setbacks for the administration's unprecedented push to collect sensitive personal information from millions of American voters ahead of the midterm elections.
Court Ruling and Implications
U.S. District Judge Susan Brnovich, a Trump appointee, ruled that Arizona's statewide voter registration list is “not a document subject to request by the Attorney General” under federal law. She dismissed the case with prejudice, stating that any attempt to amend the complaint would be “legally futile.”
The Justice Department has filed lawsuits against at least 30 states and the District of Columbia, seeking access to voter roll data including dates of birth, addresses, driver's license numbers, and partial Social Security numbers. To date, at least 13 states have voluntarily complied or promised to provide the information: Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming.
In addition to Arizona, judges have ruled against the administration in Rhode Island, California, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Oregon. In Georgia, a lawsuit was dismissed due to improper venue, prompting the government to refile elsewhere.
Reactions from State Officials
Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes celebrated the ruling as “a win for voter privacy.” He noted that the requested database contained sensitive personal information and emphasized that this is “the sixth federal court to reach the same conclusion.” Fontes had previously resisted the DOJ's demands, even responding to a lawsuit announcement on social media with the phrase “pound sand.”
Legal and Privacy Concerns
The Justice Department invoked the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) in its lawsuit, claiming the request was part of an investigation into Arizona's compliance with federal election law. However, in the Rhode Island case, a DOJ attorney admitted the department intended to share the unredacted voter roll information with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to check citizenship status through the Systemic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database.
States have sole constitutional authority to maintain voter rolls. The NVRA, enacted in 1993, requires states to make a “reasonable effort” to remove ineligible voters but does not mandate federal access to detailed records.
Rarity of Voter Fraud
Voter fraud remains exceedingly rare. Even when using the SAVE database, screenings reveal very few potential violations among tens of millions of voters. However, the SAVE program has flagged eligible voters due to outdated or incomplete information, raising concerns about erroneous purges and disenfranchisement.
Experts warn that the administration's actions could undermine election integrity. David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research, stated that “the federal government does not have the right to collect information on hundreds of millions of American voters unless Congress has authorized it.” He suggested the effort may be aimed at amplifying false narratives about election problems.
The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
