A federal judge in Massachusetts on Thursday dismissed a Justice Department lawsuit seeking the state’s detailed voter registration records, marking another courtroom setback for the effort by the Trump administration to obtain sensitive data about voters. The decision came from U.S. District Court Judge Leo Sorokin, who said the Justice Department’s request did not meet the procedural and evidentiary requirements set out in federal law. The ruling adds to a pattern of judges rejecting similar attempts by the Justice Department to compel states to turn over unredacted voter-roll information.
Sorokin, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, said the Justice Department’s office of the U.S. attorney general did not take the necessary steps required to access voter rolls. In particular, the judge said federal law requires a statement of why the attorney general demands the records, and that the statement must be factual rather than based on a conceivable or possible reason.
In an emailed response, the Justice Department said it “does not comment on ongoing litigation.” The government has previously said it seeks the voter data as part of election-security efforts, but state officials and others have argued that the requests run afoul of state and federal privacy protections. Some have also raised concerns that sensitive voter information could be used for purposes beyond election administration.
During a hearing last month in Rhode Island, a Justice Department attorney told a federal judge that the department was seeking unredacted voter roll information so it could be shared with the Department of Homeland Security to check citizenship status. The attorney, Eric Neff, said during the March 26 hearing before U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy that the Justice Department’s plan was to “run this against the DHS SAVE database,” referring to DHS’s Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program.
The lawsuit in Massachusetts sought voter data that included dates of birth, addresses, driver’s license numbers and partial Social Security numbers. In Sorokin’s ruling, the judge found that the Justice Department failed to follow the requirements for demanding the voter rolls set by the 1960 civil rights law, which was enacted to end racial discrimination in elections. Under that law, state voter records must be made available for inspection by the U.S. attorney general if the office provides an outline of why the information is being demanded and how it will be used.
Sorokin said the letter demanding Massachusetts’ voter data made no reference to the Civil Rights Act and did not cite concerns about the way Massachusetts complied with federal voting laws. He also said the letter failed to include any factual basis for the demand. In court documents, the Justice Department argued that it sought the data to check for “Massachusetts’ possible lack of compliance” with federal voter registration list requirements and contended that the attorney general cannot be required to prove a violation before seeking evidence.
“These arguments miss the point,” Sorokin wrote, according to the report. Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell called the ruling a decisive win for voters and the rule of law, adding that the privacy of voters “is not up for negotiation.”
Other judges in multiple states have dismissed comparable Justice Department lawsuits seeking similarly detailed voter data. In Michigan, a federal judge found the cited laws did not require disclosure of the voter records the federal government sought. In California, a judge said the administration “may not unilaterally usurp the authority over elections,” which the Constitution gives to states and Congress. In Oregon, a judge concluded the federal government was not entitled to unredacted voter registration lists containing sensitive data.
In Georgia, a judge dismissed a Justice Department lawsuit after finding it had been filed in the wrong city, and the federal government later refiled in the city specified by the court; that case is ongoing. The Justice Department has appealed dismissals in Oregon, California and Michigan.