What did the DOJ’s complaint in the Fulton County records lawsuit specifically request and cite as legal authority?

1. What the complaint asks the court to order

The complaint asks the U.S. District Court in Atlanta to declare that Fulton County’s refusal to provide the 2020 election records violates federal law and to order the county — and specifically Fulton County Clerk of Courts Ché Alexander — to produce the records requested, with the DOJ seeking an order requiring production within five days of a court order ^{[3] [2]}. The materials singled out include “all used and void ballots, stubs of all ballots, signature envelopes, and corresponding envelope digital files from the 2020 General Election in Fulton County,” language repeated across DOJ filings and news summaries ^{[1] [2] [5]}.

2. The statutory authorities the complaint cites

The complaint expressly grounds its demand in the Civil Rights Act of 1960 — including Title III record-retention provisions — asserting that the clerk’s refusal violated those statutory record requirements ^{[1] [3]}. It also cites the Attorney General’s enforcement powers under federal election laws enacted by Congress, pointing to the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act as statutory bases for the Justice Department’s interest in ensuring “effective” voter registration lists and related record-keeping ^{[2] [1] [4]}. One news report summarizes the complaint language as asking a court to declare the refusal a violation of Title III as required by 52 U.S.C., tying the Civil Rights Act claim into the broader U.S. Code provisions governing federal election enforcement ^[3].

3. How the complaint frames the Attorney General’s role

The complaint portrays the Attorney General — and the Civil Rights Division under Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon — as statutorily empowered to demand state and local election records to enforce federal voter-list maintenance and transparency obligations, and it characterizes earlier letters and a State Election Board subpoena as precursors to the DOJ’s demand ^{[2] [3] [5]}. DOJ filings state the department sent a letter on Oct. 30 seeking the records after a state subpoena and contend the local clerk failed to comply; the complaint thereby asks the federal court to vindicate the Attorney General’s asserted statutory authority ^{[2] [3]}.

4. The factual and legal pushback noted in reporting

Local officials and court filings respond that the requested materials are sealed under state-court orders and cannot be produced without a court unsealing them, a defense the complaint confronts by alleging statutory duty to produce and asserting the clerk’s noncompliance ^{[1] [6] [7]}. Legal commentators and watchdogs question whether, five years after the election, the Civil Rights Act’s record-retention argument gives the DOJ immediate authority to compel production, and some observers call the action a politically fraught escalation tied to ongoing disputes over 2020 ^{[4] [5] [8]}.

5. Why the legal authorities matter and the broader stakes

Invoking the Civil Rights Act and federal election statutes converts what might otherwise be a state-sealed records dispute into a question of federal enforcement authority, and it sets a short turnaround demand — production within five days of an order — that would force rapid court resolution if the claim survives preliminary defenses about sealed records and statutory limits ^{[3] [2]}. Critics argue the lawsuit aligns with political aims to revisit the 2020 count, while DOJ statements emphasize statutory enforcement of voter-list and record-keeping duties; both the legal predicates and the public-policy context shape whether a court will treat the request as a routine enforcement action or an extraordinary demand ^{[4] [5] [8]}.