DOJ plans to sue California, Michigan, Minnesota, NY, NH, and Pa for refusing to hand over voter registration rolls

Last edited Sun Sep 28, 2025, 01:18 AM - Edit history (2)

...@grok-assisted breakdown:

U.S. Justice Department plans to sue California, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania for refusing to provide voter registration rolls. They claim that, under federal laws like NVRA, HAVA, and the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the Attorney General can demand these to ensure proper voter list maintenance and prevent misconduct.

@grok, didn't most states in question offer the DOJ publicly available voter files that did not include private sensitive information?

Doesn't the Constitution direct the vast majority of election oversight to the states?

Some states, like California, offered alternatives such as in-person data viewing to protect sensitive info, while others provided only public records. However, the DOJ sued for full voter rolls under laws like NVRA and HAVA, claiming non-compliance.

The Constitution (Art. I, Sec. 4) assigns primary election oversight to states but permits Congress to regulate, enabling federal enforcement.

...can you explain this further?

"The Constitution (Art. I, Sec. 4) assigns primary election oversight to states but permits Congress to regulate, enabling federal enforcement."

How does Congress regulating enable the DOJ in this request?

Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution grants states primary authority over election procedures but allows Congress to enact overriding laws. Congress used this power to pass the NVRA (requiring accurate voter rolls and authorizing the AG to sue for access) and HAVA (mandating statewide databases with federal coordination). These laws empower the DOJ, as the enforcement arm, to demand full voter registration data and litigate non-compliance, as in the recent suits against those states.

...didn't the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirm a district court ruling in a DOJ suit against Maine that, “nothing in the text of the NVRA prohibits the appropriate redaction of uniquely or highly sensitive personal information in the Voter File?”

Yes, in Public Interest Legal Foundation v. Bellows (2023), the 1st Circuit affirmed a district court ruling allowing redaction of uniquely sensitive info (e.g., SSNs, birthdates) from voter files under NVRA, quoting: “nothing in the text of the NVRA prohibits the appropriate redaction of uniquely or highly sensitive personal information in the Voter File.” This precedent supports states' privacy measures in disclosures.

@grok, don't both of those laws put list maintenance squarely in the hands of the states?

Doesn't the federal government’s authority only reside in ensuring states are engaged in a reasonable general program of list maintenance?

Why would DOJ need voter rolls for that effort?

Yes, NVRA and HAVA assign primary list maintenance to states, requiring uniform programs to remove ineligible voters (e.g., deceased, relocated) while meeting federal standards.

Federal authority focuses on ensuring states maintain reasonable, compliant programs, with DOJ empowered to enforce via lawsuits if needed.

DOJ seeks rolls to audit accuracy, verify removals, and check for issues like duplicates or fraud, as authorized under these laws for oversight. Recent suits cite non-compliance with data requests.

Don't states already audit accuracy, verify removals, and check for issues like duplicates or fraud?

States should be able to just assert compliance and only be challenged when there's evidence to the contrary. Is DOJ presenting evidence of non-compliance along with demands?

States handle their own voter roll audits, verifications, and checks for issues like duplicates or fraud, as required by NVRA and HAVA.

Federal laws allow DOJ to demand access for oversight without prior evidence of problems. In these suits, the cited non-compliance is the refusal itself; no specific evidence of roll inaccuracies was detailed in the complaints or announcements.

what legal precedent or prior DOJ practice is there for DOJ getting access to these records?

It's not just Democratic states objecting to these demands, is it? Hasn't a Trump admin attempted this before?

Precedents include U.S. v. Missouri (2006) and U.S. v. Louisiana (2009), where DOJ sued under NVRA for list maintenance access. Prior practices involve targeted requests for enforcement, like in 2023 Maine case allowing redactions.

DOJ contacted 35+ states, including Republican-led ones like Kansas that resisted; suits target CA, MI, MN, NY, NH, PA.

Yes, Trump's 2017 voter fraud commission requested rolls from all states; many refused, and it disbanded in 2018.

Did Kansas and Texas give DOJ partial data or delay providing the requested information?

What further action has been taken against those two states?

Kansas provided publicly available voter data initially but not the full requested information, remaining in talks with DOJ. Texas delayed due to ongoing technical upgrades. No further actions, like lawsuits, reported against either.

no DOJ threats or accusations that Kansas or Texas violated federal voting laws by neglecting to fully comply with the DOJ demands?

Was there any communication at all from DOJ in response to those states partial complance?

Based on available reports, no DOJ threats or accusations of violating federal voting laws have been made against Kansas or Texas for their partial or delayed compliance.

Kansas remains in talks with DOJ after providing public data only; Texas cited system upgrades for delays. No specific DOJ responses to this partial compliance are detailed in public sources.

end.

...this is info I've crosschecked, and formatted for me, rather than my usual practice of copying things from myriad sources that I read and compiling them here.

More than that, @grok provides me updated info and more often than not with the source attached; and indefatigable answering my questions, even about its own answers.

I'd hope people verify ALL info they receive, not just for from an AI search engine like @grok.