FOLLOW US

USA HERALD - On September 25, 2025, the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division announced federal lawsuits against six states — California, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania. At issue is each state’s refusal or failure to provide its statewide voter registration rolls when requested by the DOJ.

Attorney General Pamela Bondi was blunt: “Clean voter rolls are the foundation of free and fair elections. Every state has a responsibility to ensure that voter registration records are accurate, accessible, and secure — states that don’t fulfill that obligation will see this Department of Justice in court.”

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon echoed that point, saying the refusal of these states to comply undermines the integrity of elections. “Clean voter rolls protect American citizens from voting fraud and abuse, and restore their confidence that their states’ elections are conducted properly, with integrity, and in compliance with the law.”

Legal Foundation

These lawsuits are rooted in three statutes that Congress has entrusted to the DOJ:

• The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) requires states to maintain accurate voter lists and make records of those maintenance activities available for inspection.
• The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) mandates that each state keep a single, uniform, official, centralized, and computerized statewide voter registration list.
• The Civil Rights Act of 1960 (CRA) empowers the Attorney General to demand election records — including voter registration rolls — for inspection and analysis.

The DOJ’s filings argue that each defendant state failed to comply with these mandates, and that the federal government has a right and duty to enforce compliance.

From a legal perspective, the DOJ is entering this fight from a position of strength. The statutory language of the NVRA, HAVA, and CRA is clear and has been repeatedly upheld by courts. States may argue that voter privacy concerns justify withholding full registration data, but federal courts have historically rejected those defenses when they conflict with explicit congressional mandates.

In short: the law sides with the DOJ.

That said, we should expect some of these states to fight hard, particularly California and New York, both of which have previously clashed with federal authorities on election transparency issues. Their legal teams may argue that disclosing the full rolls poses risks to voter security or violates state-level data privacy laws. But under supremacy principles, those defenses are unlikely to prevail.

Likelihood of DOJ Success

The DOJ’s chances of prevailing here are extremely high. In fact, this may be one of the cleanest election-related cases the Civil Rights Division has filed in recent memory. Unlike messy disputes over voter ID laws or redistricting maps, this is about straightforward statutory compliance. Either the states provided the lists or they did not. Courts are unlikely to indulge vague privacy objections when Congress has spoken directly on the issue.

If DOJ succeeds — and I believe they will — the immediate effect will be orders compelling each of the six states to turn over their voter rolls. The broader impact will be a strong national precedent. States across the country will know that failing to comply with federal voter-list requirements will trigger swift and decisive litigation.

This isn’t simply about paperwork. It’s about election integrity. By forcing transparency in voter registration data, the DOJ is closing one of the most common avenues for potential fraud and abuse: bloated, inaccurate, or outdated rolls.

What Comes Next

The six lawsuits were filed on September 25 in the federal district courts of each defendant state. Over the next several weeks, states will have to file answers or motions to dismiss. If they contest jurisdiction or raise constitutional defenses, preliminary hearings could stretch into early 2026. But the DOJ has the authority, the statutes, and — most importantly — a compelling argument grounded in congressional intent.

If preliminary injunctions are granted, states could be forced to produce rolls before the 2026 primaries. Appeals will almost certainly follow, but higher courts are not likely to intervene where the statutes leave so little room for ambiguity.

These lawsuits represent more than a bureaucratic dispute over records. They strike at the heart of public confidence in elections. Voter roll transparency is not a partisan weapon; it is a safeguard of democracy. When states refuse to comply, they are not just defying the DOJ — they are defying Congress and the American people’s right to know that elections are being conducted with integrity.

Sources

• DOJ Civil Rights Division Press Release (Sept. 25, 2025) –gov
• National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (52 U.S.C. §20501 et seq.)
• Help America Vote Act of 2002 (52 U.S.C. §21083)
• Civil Rights Act of 1960 (52 U.S.C. §20701)
• Federal court filings in California, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania (filed Sept. 25, 2025).