A federal judge in Santa Ana, California, dismissed a U.S. Justice Department lawsuit on Thursday that sought detailed voter registration data from nearly 23 million Californians. The ruling came after California officials refused to hand over the information, citing privacy laws and state control over elections. U.S. District Judge David O. Carter called the request unprecedented and illegal, saying it overstepped federal authority and risked harming voter turnout.
Background
The case stems from a broader push by the Trump administration to review voter rolls across the country. In March, President Trump issued an executive order requiring proof of citizenship for voters and directing states to handle mail ballots only if received by election day. This followed years of claims by Trump about election fraud in 2020, including in California, though no evidence has supported those claims.
The Justice Department sued California Secretary of State Shirley Weber in September. They argued she blocked federal efforts to check state compliance with voting laws and prevent fraud. The suit targeted 23 states and the District of Columbia, mostly led by Democrats. Officials said clean voter rolls are key to fair elections.
California pushed back hard. Weber called the demand a fishing expedition with no legal basis. She said it ignored state privacy protections for voter data. The state runs its own elections, and handing over personal details like names, addresses, birth dates, driver's license numbers, and partial Social Security numbers felt like a major intrusion.
This is not the first clash. Just a day earlier, a judge in Oregon rejected a similar DOJ suit. California Governor Gavin Newsom's office noted it as another loss for the administration, following a win on redistricting.
Key Details
Judge Carter, appointed by President Bill Clinton, issued a 33-page ruling from his court in Santa Ana. He questioned why the DOJ needed unredacted data for millions without explaining specific problems in California. The department wanted the full statewide voter list, records of duplicates in seven counties, canceled registrations due to deaths or non-citizenship, and details on inactive voters.
The Judge's Reasoning
Carter said the DOJ misused civil rights laws meant for other purposes. Those laws do not allow the federal government to collect massive amounts of private voter data without congressional approval.
"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."
— U.S. District Judge David O. Carter
He warned that such moves chip away at democracy step by step. Carter dismissed the case with no chance to refile, calling the legal argument flawed at its core. He expected an appeal, possibly reaching the Supreme Court.
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, who leads the DOJ's Civil Rights Division, posted a video on X earlier that day. She said her team aimed to clean voter rolls nationwide and planned to contact every state.
Weber responded in a statement, vowing to protect California's data and challenge federal overreach.
"I will continue to uphold my promise to Californians to protect our democracy, and I will continue to challenge this administration's disregard for the rule of law and our right to vote."
— California Secretary of State Shirley Weber
The DOJ did not comment right away on the ruling.
What This Means
This decision blocks one part of the administration's plan to centralize voter data. It upholds state rights to manage elections and keep personal information private. Voter advocates see it as a win against efforts that could scare people from registering or voting, especially minorities or those without easy access to citizenship proof.
The ruling sets a precedent for the other 22 states facing similar suits. If upheld, it limits federal power over elections without new laws from Congress. Election experts say states already remove ineligible voters regularly, and mass data grabs are not standard practice.
For California, with its large and diverse population, the outcome protects 23 million records from federal eyes. It avoids risks like data breaches or misuse that could erode trust in the system. Newsom's team frames it as California standing firm against Washington.
Nationally, the fight points to deep divides on election security. The administration views voter rolls as a weak spot for fraud. States like California see federal demands as political moves without solid proof. Appeals could drag this on, testing balances between federal oversight and local control.
Voters in targeted states now wait to see if their data stays safe or if higher courts side with the DOJ. Either way, it shapes how elections run ahead of future votes. The tension shows no sign of easing, with both sides dug in on their views of fairness and fraud.
