The justice department is not entitled to sensitive information on California voters, a federal judge ruled on Thursday, writing that the administration’s efforts to obtain the information on voters in the state is a threat to democracy. The Trump administration has filed similar lawsuits in nearly half of US states.
Last summer, the justice department asked California for a list of all voters, including their dates of birth and the last four digits of their social security number, claiming the information was needed to ensure the state was keeping ineligible voters off its rolls. California’s secretary of state offered to let the justice department inspect a redacted version of the voter registration list, but refused to turn over all of the requested information. The justice department responded by filing a lawsuit against the state and went on to file similar litigation in 23 states and the District of Columbia.
The ruling is a setback to the Trump administration’s controversial efforts to gather sweeping voter information, which experts have said are based on weak legal arguments. The suits have nonetheless caused considerable alarm among voting rights activists, who see them as a vehicle to make exaggerated claims about noncitizens on the voter rolls and sow doubt about the integrity of the US election system ahead of this fall’s midterms.
US district judge David Carter said in a blistering ruling that the justice department was not entitled to the sensitive information it sought and dismissed the justice department’s suit.
“The centralization of this information by the federal government would have a chilling effect on voter registration which would inevitably lead to decreasing voter turnout as voters fear that their information is being used for some inappropriate or unlawful purpose,” Carter, an appointee of Bill Clinton, wrote. “This risk threatens the right to vote which is the cornerstone of American democracy.”
The justice department did not return a request for comment.
A federal judge in Oregon also reportedly indicated on Wednesday that he intends to block a similar request for voter information there.
“Today the court sent a clear message: states run elections, not the administration. This decision serves as a vindication of what states have been arguing for months: there is no legal basis for the federal government’s sweeping demands for voters’ most sensitive information,” said Dax Goldstein, election protection program director at the non-profit States United Democracy Center, in a statement. “The justice department’s enforcement authority has limits – it does not extend to hijacking state election authority. Other courts across the country should heed this decision when examining similar cases before them.”
The Trump administration pointed to several laws to argue the federal government was entitled to the information. One of those laws, the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), requires states to make a “reasonable effort” to keep ineligible voters off the rolls. In a somewhat novel argument, the administration also pointed to a provision in the 1960 Civil Rights Act that allows the US attorney general to inspect voting records if they present a valid statement and purpose. The provision was used in the Jim Crow south to allow the justice department to ensure local election officials were actually registering Black voters.
But Carter pointed to public reporting and statements by justice department officials that suggest the government will compare the information it collects with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) records for immigration enforcement. He also said there was evidence the government was trying to create a centralized database of Americans’ personal information.
“The ourt is not required to accept pretextual, formalistic explanations untethered to the reality of what the government has said outside of the courtroom,” he wrote. “Representations by the [justice department] itself show that their requests to states for voter roll data go beyond their purported compliance check with the NVRA and into the territory of comprehensive data collection.”
Carter also ripped the justice department for using a landmark civil rights law to try and justify collecting information on millions of Americans.
“Congress’ purpose in passing the civil rights laws the [justice department] now invokes for its extraordinary request was to protect hard-won civil rights victories allowing access to the ballot box,” he wrote. “It is not for the executive, or even this court to authorize the use of civil rights legislation as a tool to forsake the privacy rights of millions of Americans. That power belongs solely to Congress.”
A handful of states have voluntarily turned over their voter registration lists to either the justice department or the DHS. The states that have run their rolls against a DHS database have not found widespread evidence of noncitizen voting.
The DHS has run around 50m voter records through an immigration database, Matthew Tragesser, a spokesman for US Citizenship and Immigration Services, which is part of the DHS, said in a statement. He said officials had identified “tens of thousands” of potential noncitizens. The agency did not respond to a follow-up question asking approximately how many potential noncitizens it had identified; the New York Times reported earlier this week it was approximately 10,000. That means that around 0.02% of all voter records run through the DHS database so far have been those of potential noncitizens.
In his ruling, Carter said the justice department effort to obtain voter data was part of a larger push to erode American democracy.
“The taking of democracy does not occur in one fell swoop; it is chipped away piece by piece until there is nothing left. The case before the court is one of these cuts that imperils all Americans,” he said.
