DOJ’s Unprecedented Push for Voter Data Raises Concerns
Recent actions by the Trump administration suggest a deliberate strategy to influence the upcoming election, including efforts to gather voter files from numerous states. In May, the Department of Justice (DOJ) initiated requests for states’ voter registration databases, seeking sensitive details like driver’s license numbers and partial Social Security numbers.
Reports indicate that the DOJ has engaged with at least 26 states regarding election administration, requesting voter registration lists from at least 22 of them. The Brennan Center is tracking these requests and the states’ subsequent responses through public reports.
Only a minority of states have complied with the DOJ’s requests, with at least 11 states providing only publicly available voter file versions. These versions typically include basic information such as names, addresses, party affiliations, and voting history. In early August, the DOJ intensified its efforts through a new series of letters demanding comprehensive voter registration databases.
While federal inquiries about election administration are not new, the breadth of this request is unprecedented. Such a federal initiative to amass voter records nationwide raises alarms about potential implications for voters and election officials.
Fundamentally, election management, including voter roll maintenance, is the responsibility of state and local governments. States add new voters and remove ineligible ones as part of their duties. The DOJ’s requests for complete voter files could signify an attempted federal encroachment on state-run elections. Should these requests succeed, the federal government might compile a database containing personal information on every registered voter, which could be misused or become a target for hacking.
The DOJ’s actions are not supported by federal voting law enforcement needs. Instead, President Trump’s March 2025 executive order directs the federal collection of voter files, which currently faces multiple legal challenges. The DOJ’s August letters, citing the Civil Rights Act of 1960, fail to substantiate the purpose of these requests adequately.
Some letters suggest the need for voter files to ensure compliance with the National Voter Registration Act, aimed at maintaining accurate voter rolls. However, a standalone snapshot of voter lists does not provide sufficient insight into a state’s maintenance procedures.
Other DOJ letters reference the Help America Vote Act, asserting compliance verification necessitates access to voter registration details. Still, a voter file alone cannot confirm if jurisdictions requested required information during registration.
Moreover, the DOJ’s data requests potentially breach federal and state privacy laws. The Privacy Act governs federal access to individual data, with provisions regarding First Amendment-protected activities. Compliance with the Privacy Act would require the DOJ to notify the public and invite comments, steps it has not fulfilled.
Many states also have laws restricting the disclosure of sensitive voter data, which some states have noted in response to federal requests. Enforcing compliance with these requests would require a federal court order, which the DOJ has not obtained.
The executive branch lacks authority over election management or compiling a national voter database. These actions by the DOJ threaten privacy and encroach on states’ constitutional rights to conduct elections.
