A federal judge in California has blocked the Trump administration's Justice Department from obtaining the state's complete voter registration records. The ruling came Thursday in a lawsuit where the DOJ demanded names, addresses, birthdates, driver's license numbers, and partial Social Security numbers for nearly 23 million registered voters. California officials refused the request, pointing to privacy laws, and the judge agreed, calling the move a threat to voting rights.
Background
The Justice Department under President Trump has pushed to collect voter data from states across the country. This effort targets 23 states plus the District of Columbia. Officials say the goal is to clean voter rolls and ensure election integrity under the National Voter Registration Act, a civil rights law from 1993. That law requires states to keep voter lists accurate by removing people who have moved or died.
California, like other states sued, did not hand over the full, unredacted database. State election officials argued the request went too far. They said federal privacy rules and state laws protect this kind of personal information. Releasing it could put voters at risk of identity theft or harassment, they claimed. The DOJ filed suit anyway, seeking a court order to force compliance.
This case fits into a larger pattern. Just one day before the California ruling, a judge in Oregon made a similar move, tentatively rejecting the DOJ's demand for that state's voter data. Both rulings push back against what critics see as federal overreach into state-run elections. Voter registration has always been handled at the state level in the U.S., a system dating back to the nation's founding.
Judge David O. Carter, who sits in the Central District of California, heard arguments in the case. Appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1998, he has handled many high-profile matters over the years. In this instance, he sided fully with California and groups that joined the defense.
Key Details
Judge Carter dismissed the entire lawsuit with no chance for the DOJ to refile in his court. He wrote that the department misused the civil rights law. That law aims to help people register to vote and keep rolls clean, not to let the federal government gather massive amounts of private data.
The judge pointed out the DOJ showed no proof of specific problems in California that needed this level of access. Without evidence of wrongdoing, the demand seemed too broad.
“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,” Judge Carter wrote. “This effort goes far beyond what Congress intended when it passed the underlying legislation.”
Carter warned that handing over this data could scare people away from voting. He said centralizing voter information in Washington might make folks worry their details would be misused. This could hit hardest among groups that have faced barriers to the ballot box in the past, like minorities and low-income voters.
“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,” the judge added. “This risk threatens the right to vote which is the cornerstone of American democracy.”
The Data at Stake
California's voter file holds records for about 22.9 million people. Each entry includes full names, home addresses, dates of birth, and unique ID numbers from driver's licenses or the last four digits of Social Security numbers. States already share some basic info with the federal government for things like jury duty or tax purposes. But this request was for everything, unredacted.
California offered a smaller set of data instead—records of people who had not voted in recent elections. The DOJ turned that down and went to court. The judge found even that limited sharing went beyond what the law requires.
During the hearing, Carter stressed the bigger picture. He said giving the executive branch unchecked power over elections data sets a dangerous precedent. It skips Congress and public input, he noted.
What This Means
This ruling hands a clear win to states that want to keep control over their elections. California Secretary of State Alex Padilla called it a defense of voter privacy in statements after similar fights. Other states now have stronger ground to fight off the DOJ's demands.
The DOJ will likely appeal. Judge Carter himself said he expects that step. The case could climb to higher courts, possibly the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and even the Supreme Court. That would test how far federal power extends under election laws.
For voters, the decision means their personal details stay with state officials for now. It reduces the immediate risk of a national database that could be hacked or abused. Election experts say fragmented state systems, while messy, protect against single points of failure.
The Trump administration frames this as a fight against fraud. They point to cases where non-citizens or dead people stayed on rolls. But judges in California and Oregon found no link between those issues and the need for full access. States already purge rolls using tools like the Electronic Registration Information Center, a multi-state group that shares data voluntarily.
Looking ahead, this could slow the DOJ's nationwide push. Of the 23 states sued, some have settled by providing partial data. Others are holding firm. If appeals fail, the effort might fizzle, leaving voter roll maintenance to states as usual.
Election season looms large. With midterm campaigns heating up, both sides will watch court fights closely. Democrats cheer the privacy win; Republicans see it as blocking cleanup efforts. The tension shows deep divides over how to run fair elections.
Voter turnout matters in close races. Any chill on registration could shift outcomes in battleground areas. For now, California's 23 million voters can register and cast ballots without federal eyes on their every detail.
This story builds on months of legal back-and-forth. Reporters have tracked DOJ filings since early last year. Court documents show the department ramped up suits after states resisted informal requests. The California dismissal is the most complete rejection so far.
