Justice Department Sues 5 More States For Refusing To Provide Voter Rolls

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,

The federal government has filed lawsuits against five states—Utah, Oklahoma, Kentucky, West Virginia, and New Jersey—accusing local officials of failing to provide full voter registration lists as requested, the Department of Justice (DOJ) said in a Feb. 26 statement.

“The Attorney General is uniquely charged by Congress with broad authority to request election records under the Civil Rights Act of 1960,” the DOJ said. “This Act allows her to demand the production, inspection, and analysis of statewide voter registration lists that can be cross-checked effectively for improper registrations.”

However, the states have failed to produce voter rolls requested by the attorney general, according to the complaints.

The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division has now filed complaints against 29 states and the District of Columbia over the issue.

The lawsuit against Utah argued that the attorney general sent a letter seeking the state’s computerized statewide voter registration list on July 15. The state did provide the information on July 31, but this was the publicly available redacted version of the list.

On Aug. 14, the attorney general sent another letter, demanding that Utah provide a current, unredacted, electronic copy, the lawsuit said.

The state subsequently raised privacy concerns related to the demand for federal election records, and has yet to provide the full list as requested.

Multiple laws require state officials and election officers to maintain and preserve records relating to voter registrations and related actions. The lawsuit accused Utah’s chief election officer of violating the Civil Rights Act, the complaint said.

Similar allegations were made in lawsuits against officials from Oklahoma, Kentucky, West Virginia, and New Jersey.

“Accurate, well-maintained voter rolls are a requisite for the election integrity that the American people deserve,” Attorney General Pamela Bondi said. “This latest series of litigation underscores that this Department of Justice is fulfilling its duty to ensure transparency, voter roll maintenance, and secure elections across the country.”

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Civil Rights Division said that many state election officials are fighting them in court “rather than show their work.”

“We will not be deterred, regardless of party affiliation, from carrying out critical election integrity legal duties,” Dhillon said.

The Epoch Times reached out to officials from the five states for comments and did not receive a response by publication time.

On Sept. 16, the DOJ sued Oregon and Maine, accusing them of failing to provide voter registration rolls. The same month, similar complaints were filed against California, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania.

In December, the DOJ filed lawsuits against Delaware, Maryland, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Georgia, Illinois, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia. Last month, Arizona and Connecticut were sued by the department.

Following Bondi’s letter requesting Minnesota provide access to the state’s voter rolls, Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon said in response on Jan. 25: “The answer to Attorney General Bondi’s request is no. Her letter is an outrageous attempt to coerce Minnesota into giving the federal government private data on millions of U.S. Citizens in violation of state and federal law. This comes after repeated and failed attempts by the DOJ to pressure my office into providing the same data.”

Simon said that Minnesota’s elections were “fair, accurate, honest, and secure,” and that “the law does not give the federal government the authority to obtain this private data,” such as Social Security and driver’s license information.

Election Integrity

The Justice Department’s attempt to secure full voter rolls from states follows President Donald Trump’s March 2025 executive order “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections,” which required the attorney general to prioritize the enforcement of laws restricting voter registration and voting by noncitizens.

Republicans are also pushing forward the SAVE America Act, which requires Americans to prove their citizenship when registering to vote. It also mandates that citizens show photo identification when casting ballots, or include a photocopy of their identification when voting by mail.

The bill passed the House of Representatives on Feb. 11 but faces an uncertain future in the Senate.

Democrats have opposed the measure, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) saying that the bill was “dead on arrival” in the chamber.

“The goal of the SAVE Act is the same: disenfranchising American citizens and making it harder for eligible people to vote, particularly low-income Americans and people of color,” Schumer said on the Senate floor on Feb. 9.

Earlier this month, Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) criticized the SAVE Act, saying that it would do more harm than good, according to a Feb. 2 statement from the lawmaker’s office.

“Voting by noncitizens in federal elections is already a felony and it is extremely, extremely rare. This bill does nothing to secure our elections while seeking to disenfranchise millions of married women, military members and spouses, and rural, low-income, and minority voters,” Padilla said.

Several progressive and left-wing groups have opposed the voter ID requirements, including the League of Women Voters, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Brennan Center for Justice.

Meanwhile, Trump said in a Truth Social post on Feb. 13 that he plans to sign an executive order mandating voter ID for the midterm elections if the SAVE Act is not passed by the Senate.

“We cannot let the Democrats get away with NO VOTER I.D. any longer,” the president wrote.

“This is an issue that must be fought, and must be fought, NOW! If we can’t get it through Congress, there are Legal reasons why this SCAM is not permitted,” he said. “I will be presenting them shortly, in the form of an Executive Order.”