The Department of Justice’s quest to secure sensitive voter data is finding opposition in typically friendly territory – several staunchly conservative states.
As of 1 April, the Department of Justice (DoJ) has sued 30 states and the District of Columbia for failing to turn over full copies of their voter registration lists. The push has hit repeated roadblocks, including legal defeats in California, Massachusetts, Oregon, Rhode Island, Arizona and Michigan. But the DoJ is also running into obstacles in some of America’s reddest states, with Trump strongholds Utah, West Virginia, Georgia, Kentucky and Idaho all refusing to hand over the requested data.
In their objections, the Republican-controlled states cite their constitutionally guaranteed authority over election administration, as well as concerns over data security, privacy laws, and the questionable legal grounds of the DoJ’s request.
The sets of data requested include sensitive information such as driver’s license numbers and partial social security numbers. The DoJ has offered contradictory motives for wanting the data. However, it recently stated in a Rhode Island courtroom that it planned to share the data with the Department of Homeland Security, and run it through DHS’s SaveA database, an error-filled database intended to verify citizenship. Internal DoJ emails released in a recently filed lawsuit corroborate this intention.
The DoJ’s voter data requests have their roots in Trump’s debunked claims of a stolen election, and evidence-free assertions of widespread voter fraud. Voting experts fear that Trump’s repeated questioning of American elections could help sow distrust in the 2026 midterms, and the faulty federal database could be used to bar eligible voters across the country and challenge election results.
In April, voting rights groups sued the administration over the requests for voter rolls, accusing it of laying the groundwork for voter purges ahead of the November midterms.
Eileen O’Connor, senior counsel in voting rights at the Brennan Center for Justice, a progressive think tank, told The Guardian that the end goal for the DOJ is to “undermine elections, to try to take over and interfere with and call into doubt federal elections.”
The Brennan Center notes 12 states that have turned over their complete voter list so far, all of them Republican-lead.
But the five red states stand out for their push back.
Scott Warren, a fellow at the democracy-focused think tank the Agora Institute, works with Republican election officials around the country to build trust in elections. He said that the DoJ’s demands for sensitive voter data creates a “tightrope for these officials to walk” between their principles and the political reality at hand.
“If you ask voters in some of these more conservative states, do you want your personal information given to the federal government, they would most likely say no, because that would be overreach,” Warren said. “If you ask voters, who is asking for this information? They’re going to be more supportive, because they largely approve of the Trump administration.”
The states’ top election officials have offered consistent rationale for denying the DoJ’s requests. They all claim the DoJ’s reasoning for requiring them to hand over sensitive voter information is poorly articulated, that turning over the data would be illegal under their state’s laws, and they do not want to jeopardize their residents’ privacy.
“West Virginians entrust me with their sensitive personal information. Turning it over to the federal government, which is contrary to state law, will simply not happen,” Kris Warner, the West Virginia secretary of state, wrote in a 11 February letter. “State law is clear: voter lists are available in a redacted format from my office, but I’ll not be turning over any West Virginian’s protected information.”
Utah’s lt governor, Deidre Henderson, noted in a 26 February social media post that the DoJ had filed a lawsuit against Utah as well as “several other Republican states”.
“Neither state nor federal law entitles the Department of Justice to collect private information on law-abiding American citizens,” she wrote. “Utahns can be assured that my office will always follow the Constitution and the law, protect voters’ rights, and administer free and fair elections.”
In a 26 February letter, the Idaho secretary of state, Phil McGrane, also mirrored Utah and West Virginia’s concerns regarding legality, and expressed concerns regarding the federal government’s handling of sensitive data, including social security numbers.
“Personally identifiable information from federal systems has been transmitted outside approved channels, resulting in submission of sensitive personal information, including social security numbers, to unauthorized persons,” McGrane said. “That development reinforces the importance of careful stewardship of sensitive voter information. While I appreciate the department’s representations that Idaho’s data will be safeguarded, I cannot take that now-apparent risk in the absence of clear legal duty to do so.”
A March deep dive from ProPublica examined Idaho’s refusal to turn over sensitive voter data. It found public support for McGrane’s protection of Idahoan’s data in the deep-red state with historically high distrust of the federal government. A review of over 130 constituent messages to McGrane’s office found just one voter requesting that McGrane relinquish the data.
O’Connor, at the Brennan center, noted that some red states, including – Mississippi, South Dakota and Tennessee did turn over all of the DoJ’s requested voter data, but did not sign a memorandum of understanding confirming that they would purge DoJ-ruled ineligible voters from their rolls within 45 days. O’Connor said that this is an important indication of further pushback against overreach. CNN recently reported that only two states shared the data with the written MOU.
“Mass disenfranchisement is a danger, but it requires a couple more steps that even the states who have agreed to hand over their voter rolls still may not be willing to undertake, which would be purging a bunch of voters who shouldn’t be purged from their voter rolls,” O’Connor said.
Warren, at the Agora Institute, said that while many of these states are politically conservative and largely agree with Trump, federal interference in elections pushes them a step too far.
“Their pushback against the DoJ request comes from a place of being responsible, effective, conservative chief election officials,” Warren said.
Warren also noted that “states know better” when it comes to serving their voters. Warner, the West Virginia secretary of state, echoed this in his 11 February letter.
“I dare say that the DoJ cannot do a better job than the 55 West Virginia county clerks who have accomplished the herculean task of refreshing more than half of the state’s voter rolls over the last 9 years, and continue to do so on a daily basis,” Warner wrote.
