How have state courts ruled on DOJ demands for voter registration data since 2023?
Executive summary
Since 2023 the Justice Department under the current administration has launched an unprecedented campaign to compel states to hand over unredacted voter registration files, but courts asked to decide those disputes—mostly federal district courts—have repeatedly pushed back, dismissing or rejecting the DOJ’s statutory theories in high-profile suits in California and Oregon and tossing a Georgia case on procedural grounds while the DOJ continues to file new actions against scores of states [1] [2] [3]. Reporting and trackers show a pattern: states generally refused, provided redacted or public versions, and several courts scrutinized the DOJ’s asserted authorities under the Civil Rights Act, the NVRA and HAVA [4] [1] [5].
1. The legal battleground: federal lawsuits, not state-court fiat
The disputes over voter files have largely been litigated in federal district courts rather than in state courts; the DOJ has sued more than two dozen jurisdictions to compel full statewide lists that include sensitive identifiers, but the principal rulings documented in the reporting are federal dismissals or denials of relief rather than state-court orders directing disclosure [4] [1] [6].
2. California and Oregon: substantive rejections of the DOJ’s claims
Federal judges in both California and Oregon have dismissed the DOJ’s actions seeking unredacted statewide voter lists, with at least one court expressly rejecting the department’s invocation of multiple federal statutes and questioning the DOJ’s stated purposes for demanding sensitive information [2] [5] [1].
3. Georgia and jurisdictional hurdles
A federal judge in Macon dismissed the DOJ’s Georgia case on jurisdictional grounds, finding the suit filed in the wrong court, which underscores that some defeats have been procedural rather than merits-based even as the DOJ has refiled in other venues [3].
4. National scope and state resistance
The Brennan Center has tracked the DOJ’s requests and lawsuits against Washington, D.C., and about two dozen states that refused to provide unredacted files; many state chief election officials instead offered publicly available or redacted lists and sought clarifications from DOJ about how data would be used and protected [4] [1].
5. Statutory claims under scrutiny
Courts evaluating these cases have grappled with whether the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), or the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) actually authorize the DOJ to demand full, sensitive voter identifiers; at least one federal judge rejected the DOJ on all three statutory theories in a comprehensive opinion [5] [1].
6. Privacy, purpose, and credibility concerns raised by judges
In rejecting the DOJ’s demands, courts have highlighted mismatch between the department’s stated purpose—voter-roll maintenance enforcement—and other representations or the breadth of data requested, with judges expressing skepticism about the need for sensitive personal identifiers and calling for clearer statutory footing and safeguards [1] [2].
7. DOJ’s iterative strategy and continued litigation
Despite setbacks, the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division has continued to file suits and press claims, announcing additional lawsuits against states such as Delaware, Maryland, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington and framing the litigation as enforcement of federal election laws and list maintenance obligations [7] [6].
8. Stakes, competing narratives, and agendas
Advocates for privacy and state election autonomy argue that states alone administer elections and protect voter data, while the DOJ insists federal statutes permit oversight to ensure accurate rolls; observers and organizations tracking the fights warn the campaign raises partisan and privacy concerns, and some reporting links the litigation to broader political disputes over list-cleaning and election administration [1] [4] [8].