Why the DOJ Lost the Fight for California Voter Privacy Rights
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.
In January 2026, a major legal battle over the privacy of millions of voters reached a turning point. United States District Judge David O. Carter dismissed a high-profile lawsuit from the Department of Justice (DOJ). The federal government had demanded that California Secretary of State Shirley Weber hand over the full voter files of 23 million citizens (votebeat.org). These files contained deeply personal information. The DOJ wanted partial Social Security numbers and driver’s license data. Judge Carter called this demand illegal and unprecedented. This ruling protects the private data of voters in the most populous state in the nation (democracydocket.com).
The conflict represents a historic struggle between federal power and the rights of individual states. For many in the Black community, this case is about more than just data. It is about a long history of government surveillance. The federal government claimed it needed the data to ensure election integrity. However, the court found that such a massive data grab could actually hurt democracy. When people fear the government is watching them, they are less likely to participate (brennancenter.org). This decision highlights the complex history of state versus national power in the United States.
The Scale of the California Data Demand
The 2026 demand sought records for every registered voter in California (votebeat.org).
The Roots of Federal Oversight and the 1960 Civil Rights Act
To understand this headline, one must look back to the Civil Rights Movement. The DOJ based its demand on Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960. Originally, this law was a tool for justice. It allowed the Attorney General to inspect local voting records to find racial discrimination in the Jim Crow South (usccr.gov). At that time, local officials often blocked Black citizens from voting. The federal government needed to see the records to prove that these officials were breaking the law. The law required officials to keep records for 22 months (senate.gov).
However, the modern application of this law has changed significantly. In the 2026 case, the DOJ tried to use this old law to collect entire statewide databases. This is a scale of data collection that the original authors of the 1960 Act never imagined (brennancenter.org). Critics argue that the government is now “warping” a law meant to protect voters into a tool for surveillance. Instead of looking for discrimination, the federal government is now building what some call a “shadow” national voter roll (democracydocket.com). This shift mirrors the history of voter disenfranchisement that has long plagued the nation.
Furthermore, the technology of the 1960s was very limited. Records were kept on paper in local county offices. Today, records are digital and centralized. This allows the federal government to ask for millions of records with the push of a button. The court found that using an old civil rights law to justify modern mass data collection was an illegal overreach (votebeat.org). Judge Carter noted that the government cannot use laws from the past to ignore the privacy rights of the present.
From List Maintenance to Discriminatory Voter Purges
The federal government often claims its data requests are for “list maintenance.” This is a technical term for keeping voter rolls accurate. Laws like the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) require states to remove people who have died or moved (senate.gov). Accurate rolls are important for a healthy democracy. However, there is a major difference between maintenance and “purging.” In a social justice context, purging refers to the mass removal of eligible voters using flawed data or aggressive methods (brennancenter.org).
Historically, voter purges have targeted communities of color more than others. Since the 2013 Supreme Court decision in *Shelby County v. Holder*, purge rates have increased significantly (wikipedia.org). This decision removed federal oversight that previously prevented discriminatory changes to voting laws. Without this “preclearance” protection, many states began using aggressive “matching” software to find ineligible voters. These systems often flag people with common surnames, which are more prevalent in Black and Latino communities (theguardian.com, theguardian.com). This process can lead to eligible citizens being removed from the rolls without their knowledge.
Moreover, the DOJ’s recent efforts have increased the pressure on states. Under the current administration of President Donald Trump, the DOJ has sued over 23 states for refusing to turn over full voter files (democracydocket.com). Officials like Attorney General Pam Bondi and Civil Rights head Harmeet Dhillon have led these efforts. They argue that federal “inspection” is necessary to find non-citizens on the rolls. However, civil rights groups point out that these efforts often result in “false positives” for naturalized citizens (brennancenter.org). This turns a routine maintenance task into a tool for voter intimidation.
Voter Purge Rates Post-Shelby Decision
Purge rates increased by 21% following the removal of federal preclearance (brennancenter.org).
The Risks of Personally Identifiable Information Exposure
The DOJ did not just want names and addresses. It specifically demanded unredacted Personally Identifiable Information (PII). This includes Social Security numbers and driver’s license numbers. For marginalized communities, the exposure of this data carries high risks. It is not just about identity theft. It is about the potential for predatory targeting and government surveillance (brennancenter.org). When the federal government holds this data, it can be cross-referenced with other databases, such as immigration records.
Research shows that the impact of data exposure is not equal. For example, older Black victims of identity theft are much more likely to suffer financial loss than white victims (nih.gov). Additionally, many people in vulnerable communities have a deep-seated fear of federal surveillance. Historically, efforts to maintain control over Black bodies often look like involuntary servitude through surveillance and policing. When the DOJ asks for sensitive data, it can cause a “chilling effect.” This means people stop registering to vote because they want to protect their families from the government (votebeat.org, brennancenter.org).
In the 2026 California case, the court recognized this harm. Judge Carter noted that centralizing PII at the federal level causes a “fear of misuse.” This fear is not imaginary. In 2017, a similar request from the Kobach Commission led to thousands of voters in Colorado and Florida canceling their registrations (votebeat.org). People chose their privacy over their right to vote. The court decided that the federal government does not have the right to force people into that impossible choice. Protecting privacy is essential for maintaining a diverse and active electorate (brennancenter.org).
Bondi, Dhillon, and the Push for a “Shadow” National Roll
The personalities leading the DOJ’s efforts are also part of the story. Attorney General Pam Bondi has a long history of challenging voter access. She was a key figure in legal efforts to overturn the 2020 election results (democracydocket.com). Similarly, Harmeet Dhillon has spent years working on lawsuits that civil rights groups categorize as “anti-voting.” Her law firm has been involved in dozens of cases aimed at aggressive voter roll “cleaning” (democracydocket.com). Together, they represent a movement that views state-controlled voter files as a federal problem.
Critics describe the DOJ’s goal as the creation of a “shadow” national voter roll. The United States does not have a single national voter database. Instead, the Constitution gives states the primary authority to manage their own elections (votebeat.org). This design prevents any single person or party in Washington from controlling the entire voting system. By demanding unredacted files from all 50 states, the DOJ is attempting to build its own centralized roll. This would allow the federal government to bypass state laws and conduct its own purges (democracydocket.com, brennancenter.org).
The 2026 ruling in California was a major blow to this plan. California officials argued that the DOJ was trying to “unilaterally usurp” their authority. The state pointed to its own laws, like the California Voter Bill of Rights, which guarantee data confidentiality (votebeat.org). Judge Carter agreed with the state. He ruled that the DOJ cannot ignore state privacy protections just because it wants more data. This decision reinforces the idea that states are the “laboratories of democracy” and have the right to protect their citizens from federal overreach.
The “Chilling Effect” on Participation
Historical data shows mass registration cancellations follow invasive data requests (votebeat.org).
The Future of Voter Privacy Rights
The fight over voter files is likely to continue. While California won its case, other states have chosen to comply with the DOJ. As of early 2026, 13 states had voluntarily turned over unredacted voter data (votebeat.org). This creates a divided nation where some voters have privacy and others do not. The DOJ has confirmed that it shares the data it collects with other federal agencies, such as the Department of Homeland Security (brennancenter.org). This makes the voter roll a tool for much more than just voting.
For the Black community and immigrant groups, the 2026 ruling is a temporary victory in a larger war. The history of voting in America is a history of expansion and contraction. Every time more people gain the right to vote, new barriers are created to limit that power. The demand for millions of private records is just the latest version of this old pattern. It uses the language of “election integrity” to hide the goal of surveillance. However, the legal system still provides a way to fight back (democracydocket.com, brennancenter.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.
