African Elements Daily

Why Does the DOJ Want Your Voter Registration Data?

Play Episode Pause Episode

Mute/Unmute Episode Rewind 10 Seconds 1x Fast Forward 30 seconds

00:00 / 00:10:46

RSS Feed

Share

Link

Embed

Why Does the DOJ Want Your Voter Registration Data?

By Darius Spearman (africanelements)

Support African Elements at patreon.com/africanelements and hear recent news in a single playlist. Additionally, you can gain early access to ad-free video content.

The United States Justice Department is currently locked in a fierce legal battle with several states. These states include Arizona, Connecticut, and New Hampshire. The central issue involves access to statewide voter registration lists. This conflict is part of a larger debate over how freedom defines black political power in the modern era. Federal officials claim that they need this data to ensure election integrity. However, local leaders and residents argue that the demand for unredacted information is both intrusive and unlawful. (uw.edu)

At the heart of the matter is the interpretation of federal election law. The Department of Justice, under the administration of President Donald Trump, insists that states must share list-maintenance records. These records show how officials add and remove names from the voting rolls. For many in the Black community, this feels like a familiar struggle. It is a question of who has the final say over our participation in the democratic process. The outcome of these cases will decide how much privacy a voter can expect when they sign up to do their civic duty. (indianacitizen.org)

The Motor Voter Act and the Dual Mandate of 1993

To understand the current fight, one must look back to the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. This law is often called the “Motor Voter” Act. President Bill Clinton signed it to make registration easier for everyone. It allowed people to register at the DMV or other public agencies. The law had two main goals. First, it wanted to increase the number of registered voters. Second, it required states to keep their lists accurate. This second part is what causes the most friction today. (projectvote.org)

Section 8 of the NVRA is the specific tool the federal government is using. This section requires states to conduct “list maintenance.” This means removing the names of people who have died or moved away. The law also includes a disclosure provision. It says that states must make records of these activities available for public inspection. The DOJ argues that this includes giving them full access to the databases. However, many state officials believe this was never meant to include private data like Social Security numbers. (projectvote.org)

This struggle is part of a system of federalism that often pits the national government against the states. In the 1990s, states like California fought the NVRA because they saw it as a burden. They argued that the federal government was overstepping its bounds. Today, the roles have shifted. Now, the federal government is using the same law to demand more control over state records. This tension between federal oversight and state authority has shaped Black political history for generations. (uw.edu)

Historical Voter Intimidation and the 1981 Consent Decree

The fear of federal data grabs is not based on imagination alone. There is a long history of “ballot security” programs being used to intimidate minority voters. In 1981, a major incident occurred in New Jersey. The Republican National Committee was accused of hiring off-duty police officers to patrol polling sites in Black and Latino neighborhoods. These officers wore armbands and carried weapons. They were there to challenge the eligibility of voters. This led to a court order known as a consent decree. (uw.edu)

This decree prevented such tactics for over thirty years. It required the court to approve any “ballot security” measures before they could happen. However, the decree expired in 2018. Without these guardrails, many fear that the old tactics are returning in a digital form. Instead of armed guards at the polls, we now see the government demanding unredacted voter files. Civil rights groups argue that this data could be used to target specific communities for mass challenges. (uw.edu)

The historical context of these actions is vital. Similar to how black workers fought for economic justice, Black voters have always had to fight for the right to vote without fear. When the government asks for sensitive information, it creates a “chilling effect.” This means people might choose not to register at all to protect their privacy. If a person thinks their address or identity might be publicized, they might decide that voting is not worth the risk to their family. (uw.edu)

The 2017 Precedent of the Kobach Commission

The current push by the Justice Department mirrors an earlier attempt by the Trump administration. In 2017, President Trump created the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. This group was led by Kris Kobach. They asked all fifty states to hand over voter names, addresses, birthdays, and the last four digits of Social Security numbers. The reaction from the states was swift and mostly negative. Forty-four states refused to provide all the data, citing privacy concerns. (uw.edu)

The commission eventually disbanded in 2018. It did not find any evidence of widespread voter fraud. However, the attempt alone caused significant harm. In Colorado, nearly 4,000 people cancelled their voter registrations because of the request. Most of these individuals were from groups that historically face more scrutiny. This shows that even the request for data can be a form of voter suppression. It creates a sense of distrust between the citizen and the state. (uw.edu)

Now, in 2026, the DOJ is trying again. This time, they are using lawsuits instead of a commission. They are suing states that will not comply. By January 2026, twenty-three states and the District of Columbia were facing legal action. The DOJ claims this is about following the law. Critics say it is a way to centralize voter data for a national “scrub” of the rolls. This would allow the federal government to bypass state protections and remove voters they deem ineligible. (indianacitizen.org, uw.edu)

Why Unredacted Data Puts Minority Communities at Risk

When the DOJ asks for “unredacted data,” they are asking for everything. This includes full Social Security numbers and driver’s license numbers. Most states keep this information private to prevent identity theft. However, the federal government argues that they need it to verify citizenship status. They plan to compare voter rolls with federal immigration databases. This process is often full of errors. These errors frequently target naturalized citizens who have every right to vote. (epic.org, uw.edu)

There is also the risk of “doxing.” This happens when private information is made public. In the past, third-party groups have obtained voter lists and published the names of people they claimed were “illegal” voters. These people then faced harassment at their homes and on the internet. For Black and immigrant communities, this is a major safety concern. Access to residential addresses and party affiliation in an unredacted format allows for targeted intimidation by extremist groups. (epic.org)

Residents in New Hampshire have taken a stand against this. A federal judge recently allowed four residents to join the lawsuit against the state. They plan to argue that the broad release of their data violates their privacy. They are worried about intimidation during a very tense election season. These residents represent the voices of many who feel that their personal information should not be used as a political weapon. Their participation keeps the courtroom fight focused on the rights of the individual. (uw.edu)

The Current Wave of DOJ Lawsuits in 2026

The Justice Department is not backing down. Harmeet Dhillon, the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, is leading the charge. She has stated that the goal is to have “cleaner voter rolls” by the 2026 midterms. The DOJ is even working with the Department of Homeland Security to cross-reference databases. They argue that this is necessary to prevent non-citizens from voting. However, researchers have found that non-citizen voting is extremely rare. (uw.edu)

Arizona and Connecticut are at the center of the storm. Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes has been a vocal opponent. He argues that voters have important privacy rights that the federal government must respect. He believes that handing over unredacted lists would violate state law. Connecticut officials have also called the DOJ’s demands “unlawful.” They are fighting to keep sensitive data out of federal hands. These states are acting as a shield for their citizens. (indianacitizen.org)

The legal basis for these lawsuits often points to the Civil Rights Act of 1960. This law requires states to keep election records for twenty-two months. It was originally written to help the DOJ investigate the disenfranchisement of Black voters in the South. Now, there is a historical irony at play. A law meant to protect the voting rights of marginalized folk is being used to justify a massive data collection effort. Critics worry that this data will be used for mass purges rather than protecting the franchise. (uw.edu)

The Future of Election Administration Power

The outcome of these lawsuits will have a lasting impact on American elections. If the federal government wins, it could lead to the creation of a national voter database. This would give the DOJ unprecedented power to manage local election rolls. It would also likely lead to more aggressive list maintenance across the country. For many, this represents a “federal takeover” of a process that has always been handled by the states. (uw.edu)

On the other hand, if the states win, it will reinforce the importance of voter privacy. It will send a message that the federal government cannot demand sensitive information without a clear and narrow purpose. This would protect voters from being targeted by “digital ballot security” programs. It would also help maintain trust in the registration process. As we move closer to the 2026 elections, the stakes could not be higher for the community. (uw.edu)

Ultimately, this fight is about the balance between security and access. We all want accurate voter rolls. However, that accuracy should not come at the cost of our privacy or our safety. The history of the struggle for the vote shows that progress is never permanent. It requires constant vigilance. Whether it is through the courts or at the ballot box, the fight for a fair and private election system continues. (fairvote.org)

About the Author

Darius Spearman is a professor of Black Studies at San Diego City College, where he has been teaching for over 20 years. He is the founder of African Elements, a media platform dedicated to providing educational resources on the history and culture of the African diaspora. Through his work, Spearman aims to empower and educate by bringing historical context to contemporary issues affecting the Black community.