.png)
Trump pressed states for info on millions of voters in the midterms. It’s mostly failed.
By Jonathan Shorman
Stateline
Three weeks before Election Day, the Trump administration’s sprawling project to send sensitive personal information on millions of voters to the Department of Homeland Security has been declared illegal by a federal judge.
The blistering court decision comes after the Department of Justice pressured or sued states for their voters’ information and then, according to court records and federal documents, turned over the data it obtained to Homeland Security Investigations — a sub-agency of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE.
The Alaska context
From the Alaska Beacon
Alaska is one of 16 states to voluntarily turn over its voter rolls to the Trump administration. Carol Beecher, director of the Alaska Division of Elections, also signed an agreement that allows the U.S. Department of Justice to ask the state to put individual Alaskans on track for removal from the state’s voter list.
The decision, issued late last week, marks the latest rebuke of the Trump administration during more than a year of legal confrontations with dozens of states and voting rights groups over President Donald Trump’s efforts to assert authority over voting ahead of the midterm elections.
If Republicans lose control of one or both chambers of Congress, Trump’s final two years in office could be consumed by Democratic-led investigations into his administration and opposition to his legislative agenda.
The Justice Department’s legal arguments suggested that “every American citizen who registers to vote is the subject of a voter fraud investigation underway in the (Justice Department’s) Civil Rights Division simply because they registered to vote,” wrote Judge Sparkle Sooknanan of District of Columbia District Court, an appointee of President Joe Biden.
“Behind all the window dressing, the challenged policy represents the federal government’s attempt to decide who gets to vote,” Sooknanan wrote. “But Congress has left that authority where our Constitution has always placed it: with the states.”
SAVE program
The Justice Department has already lost at least 23 district court lawsuits seeking to force states to provide voter data. The U.S. Supreme Court also blocked Trump’s plans to use the U.S. Postal Service to restrict voting by mail.
While the Supreme Court cleared states to use a supercharged Homeland Security computer program called SAVE to seek out noncitizen voters, its effects on the midterms have been minimal because most states are restricted by federal law from conducting mass purges of registered voters so close to an election.
SAVE’s opponents point to multiple examples of the program falsely flagging Americans as possible noncitizens. Sooknanan previously ruled against SAVE’s use in a June decision, which the Supreme Court overturned in September when it allowed states to access the program.
Asked about Sooknanan’s latest decision, Justice Department spokesperson Kiersten Pels in an email to States Newsroom said only that the department was “reviewing the ruling.”
More noncitizen voting charges
In recent weeks, the Justice Department has filed a series of cases alleging noncitizen voting, which studies have consistently shown rarely occurs. The DOJ on Monday announced voter fraud charges against 16 individuals, including 13 noncitizens. In September, prosecutors secured grand jury indictments against 10 noncitizens in Minnesota.
“The law is clear, only American citizens may vote in American elections, and enforcing this law is fundamental to our democracy. That should not be a partisan concept,” U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche said at a late September news conference.
Sooknanan’s ruling came in a lawsuit filed in April by the voting rights group Common Cause and a group of voters. While both Republican and Democratic-led states had fought the Justice Department individually, the new lawsuit targeted the entire voter roll collection project — a choice aimed at protecting voters living in states that had shared or might share their data with the Trump administration voluntarily.
“This is a victory for voters and yet another loss for the Department of Justice. It’s time the Trump administration stop these desperate attempts to seize voters’ private data and take control of our elections,” Virginia Kase Solomón, Common Cause president and CEO, said in a statement.
16 states provided voter rolls
Despite the courtroom losses, the Trump administration still obtained records on tens of millions of voters. At least 16 states voluntarily provided the Justice Department with their voter rolls, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, which has tracked the DOJ’s actions.
Those states include Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Wyoming.
Court filings and internal government documents show the Trump administration put the information to use. Last week, the watchdog group Democracy Forward released internal HSI reports showing the agency received nearly 51 million Justice Department records as part of its “election integrity” investigations.
The HSI reports didn’t describe the nature of the Justice Department records. But Sooknanan wrote the DOJ had given records on millions of voters to ICE. Sooknanan ruled the transfers violated the Privacy Act, a federal law that restricts how federal agencies collect and share information on individuals.
Sooknanan referenced a letter from the acting director of ICE to the Justice Department asking for the state voter lists as part of an initiative to combat voter fraud. In the March 6 letter, Todd Lyons asked for the data “in order for HSI to conduct appropriate investigation of potential violations of federal election law.”
DOJ attorney Eric Neff replied to Lyons on March 12 to confirm the data sharing. He wrote that Homeland Security and the Justice Department would “take reasonable efforts to limit impacts to the privacy and civil liberties of United States citizens.”
However, Sooknanan found that the DOJ sought to investigate every registered voter without a specific reason to believe they committed voter fraud or that their states violated federal election laws. She warned that the department cannot evade the free speech protections within the Privacy Act by launching a “dragnet” investigation of the whole country.
‘Not only ill-conceived, but illegal’
Justin Levitt, who served as senior policy adviser for democracy and voting rights in the Biden White House and is now a law professor at Loyola Marymount University, said not much in Sooknanan’s decision will directly affect the 2026 elections.
Writing in Election Law Blog, Levitt noted that most states never turned over their voter files to the Justice Department, and of the states that did, only a few appeared to have pledged to act on whatever “unreliable garbage” data the DOJ sent back.
“But even without a direct impact on anything happening in the next month, this is an important declaration that the whole program was not only ill-conceived, but illegal,” Levitt wrote.
The Trump administration may still be allowed to compile lists of voting-age citizens in each state as part of a sweeping executive order on voting by mail signed by Trump in March. But court-mandated notice requirements mean the lists won’t be available before the midterms.
The so-called state citizenship lists are the only major element of the executive order not currently blocked by the courts. The order directs Homeland Security to work with the Social Security Administration to develop the lists and provide them to state officials, though it doesn’t require states to do anything with the information.
Maryland judge to consider citizenship lists
U.S. District Court Judge Paula Xinis, an appointee of President Barack Obama in Maryland District Court, is set to decide what the Supreme Court’s Sept. 25 decision allowing the use of SAVE means for the fate of the citizenship lists.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center, or EPIC, a public interest research organization, sued the Trump administration over the lists in August. While Xinis hasn’t ruled in the lawsuit, she has ordered the DOJ to provide at least 30 days notice of any effort to move forward with the initiative or provide the lists to states.
With less than a month before Election Day, the notice requirement effectively means the lists won’t be available before the midterm elections, even if they are upheld in court. Still, the eventual outcome holds potential consequences for future elections if states use the information to purge registered voters.
EPIC and the Justice Department have submitted dueling briefs to Xinis on what the SAVE decision means for the citizenship lists.
Lawyers for EPIC argue that key differences exist between the state citizenship lists and the SAVE system. While the SAVE system discloses information on requested individuals, they noted, the executive order mandates providing information on all U.S. citizens by state.
“Critically, states or localities must initiate a request for verification of specified individuals’ citizenship status in order to utilize” SAVE, the attorneys wrote.
Lawyers for the Justice Department called the argument a “red herring.” In their brief, they argue that state officials would have to log into a federal portal to download the citizenship data.
“That affirmative conduct would be materially similar to sending a request to DHS: either way, the State would itself initiate the transfer of data,” the DOJ brief says.
Xinis could rule at any time.
• Stateline is part of States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.
_edited.jpg)
