A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from obtaining California's complete voter registration database, dealing a significant setback to the Justice Department's broader campaign to gather voter data from dozens of states across the country.
U.S. District Judge David O. Carter dismissed the lawsuit Thursday, ruling that the federal government lacks the legal authority to demand the sensitive personal information of nearly 23 million California voters. The decision comes as the Trump administration faces similar legal challenges in multiple states over identical requests for voter records.
Background
The Justice Department filed the lawsuit against California last September as part of what it has described as an election integrity initiative. The administration has sued 23 states and the District of Columbia seeking access to their complete, unredacted voter rolls.
The DOJ requested California's full voter registration database, including names, birthdates, home addresses, driver's license numbers, and Social Security numbers. State election officials refused, citing both state and federal privacy laws and expressing concern that releasing such sensitive information would endanger voters.
The administration argued it needed the data to enforce compliance with the National Voter Registration Act. The Justice Department also cited provisions of the Help America Vote Act and the Civil Rights Act as legal grounds for its demand.
Key Details
Judge Carter rejected the government's legal reasoning, finding that the administration had misused civil rights legislation enacted decades ago for entirely different purposes. He noted that even if the Civil Rights Act provisions applied, the government failed to explain why it would need complete, unredacted voter rolls to enforce federal voting law.
"The Department of Justice seeks to use civil rights legislation which was enacted for an entirely different purpose to amass and retain an unprecedented amount of confidential voter data. This effort goes far beyond what Congress intended when it passed the underlying legislation."
The judge also found that California's privacy laws are not overridden by federal voting requirements. He cited longstanding legal precedent allowing states to redact sensitive voter information from their rolls.
Carter's dismissal was particularly decisive. The court dismissed the case "without leave to amend," a legal signal that the judge found the government's entire legal theory fundamentally flawed and not fixable through revised arguments. However, Carter acknowledged during the hearing that he expected the decision would be appealed and could eventually reach the Supreme Court.
The Broader Implications for Democracy
The judge expressed deep concern about what he saw as a dangerous consolidation of voter data in federal hands. He warned that concentrating sensitive voter information with the federal government could discourage people from registering to vote or casting ballots, particularly those who have historically faced voting discrimination.
"The centralization of this information by the federal government would have a chilling effect on voter registration which would inevitably lead to decreasing voter turnout as voters fear that their information is being used for some inappropriate or unlawful purpose. This risk threatens the right to vote which is the cornerstone of American democracy."
Carter also criticized what he characterized as an attempt to concentrate election power in the executive branch without Congressional approval or public debate. He wrote that the erosion of privacy and voting rights should be decided through the legislative process, not through executive action.
Who Intervened
The case drew intervention from voting rights organizations, including the League of Women Voters of California and multiple branches of the American Civil Liberties Union. These groups filed motions to defend voter privacy and state election authority.
The Elias Law Group, a firm focused on voting rights, has filed motions to intervene in all 22 remaining DOJ voter data lawsuits across the country, seeking to protect voters in each state.
What This Means
The ruling represents a major obstacle to the Trump administration's effort to centralize voter data at the federal level. It establishes that states retain the authority to manage their own elections and protect residents' sensitive information, even when the federal government claims election integrity concerns.
California's victory does not end the broader legal fight. The Justice Department has indicated it will likely appeal, potentially taking the case to higher courts. The same legal questions are being litigated in other states, including Oregon, where a federal judge recently issued a similar tentative ruling against the government.
The decision also highlights a fundamental tension in American elections. States administer elections and maintain voter records, but the federal government has certain enforcement powers under federal voting laws. The judge's ruling clarifies that federal enforcement authority does not extend to demanding complete access to all voter data without specific evidence of wrongdoing.
Voting rights advocates view the ruling as a protection for voters who might fear their personal information could be misused if concentrated in federal databases. Critics of the DOJ's effort have raised concerns about voter intimidation, voter suppression, and partisan misuse of private data.
The administration's framing of the effort as necessary for election integrity has been rejected by the court, which found no evidence of specific wrongdoing in California that would justify such an intrusive demand for complete voter records.
