Justice Department sues 24 states for unredacted voter files with Social Security numbers

Starting in May 2025, the Trump Justice Department sent letters to 44 states and the District of Columbia demanding unredacted voter registration files, including full Social Security numbers and driver's license numbers. The demand was grounded in the National Voter Registration ActNational Voter Registration ActA 1993 federal law that requires states to offer voter registration at DMVs and agencies, and sets rules for maintaining voter rolls.Key ConceptNational Voter Registration ActA 1993 federal law that requires states to offer voter registration at DMVs and agencies, and sets rules for maintaining voter rolls.Open conceptBookmark and the Help America Vote ActHelp America Vote ActA 2002 federal law passed after the 2000 election that modernized voting systems and required voters to provide ID numbers when registering.Key ConceptHelp America Vote ActA 2002 federal law passed after the 2000 election that modernized voting systems and required voters to provide ID numbers when registering.Open conceptBookmark, though courts later rejected that legal theory entirely.

When 29 states and DC refused to comply, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon's Civil Rights Division sued them. The DOJ sued both Democratic-led and Republican-led states — including West Virginia, Utah, and Kentucky — though Republican-led states that refused were not pursued as aggressively over time.

U.S. District Judge David O. Carter in California dismissed the DOJ's suit on Jan. 15, 2026. Carter wrote the government's request was "unprecedented and illegal" and found that California privacy laws aren't preempted by the NVRA. He also ruled the DOJ's demand violated the Privacy Act, the E-Government Act, and the Driver's Privacy Protection Act.

U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai dismissed the Oregon case on Jan. 26, 2026. Kasubhai ruled the NVRA, HAVA, and the Civil Rights Act of 1960Civil Rights Act of 1960A federal law that gave the DOJ authority to inspect voting records in order to fight Jim Crow-era voter suppression in the South.Key ConceptCivil Rights Act of 1960A federal law that gave the DOJ authority to inspect voting records in order to fight Jim Crow-era voter suppression in the South.Open conceptBookmark did not require states to hand over unredacted voter data. He wrote that the presumption that the DOJ "could be taken at its word" about how it would handle the data "no longer holds."

The DOJ separately offered Republican-led states a secret memorandum of understanding. States that signed the MOU agreed to purge voters flagged by federal databases within 45 days. The National Voter Registration Act requires 90 days' notice before removing registered voters — a gap election law experts say makes the MOU's 45-day deadline facially illegal.

Stateline obtained and published the MOU in December 2025, revealing the agreement was offered selectively to Republican-controlled states and required strict confidentiality — creating a two-track system: sued Democratic states on one side, secret purge deals for Republican states on the other.

The DOJ's legal theory shifted mid-campaign. It originally cited the NVRA and HAVA, then dropped those claims in later lawsuits and relied solely on the Civil Rights Act of 1960, which courts also rejected. The shifting theory reflected the weakness of the original legal position.

The NVRA, passed in 1993, established nationwide voter registration procedures including the "motor voter" requirement and the requirement to provide 90 days' notice before removing anyone from the rolls. Congress designed the 90-day notice period specifically to prevent eligible voters from being purged close to elections.

The campaign represents a novel use of DOJ civil rights enforcement power. The Civil Rights Division has historically been used to expand voting access under the Voting Rights Act. Using it to compel states to hand over sensitive voter data for federal review inverts that traditional direction — the same division now threatens states that won't comply with federal data demands rather than defending voters against state restrictions.