The United States Justice Department is significantly escalating its efforts to acquire extensive voter and election-related data from states nationwide, a move that signals a notable shift in its engagement with electoral processes. This intensified outreach, conducted through various channels including formal letters, emails, and direct phone calls, aims to compile comprehensive information from election administrators across at least 15 states initially, with indications that more jurisdictions will eventually be contacted.
This aggressive data collection initiative marks a departure from the department’s historical emphasis on safeguarding ballot access. Under the current administration, the focus appears to have pivoted towards an assertive crackdown on alleged voter fraud and noncitizen voting—issues that, while rare, have been subjects of persistent and often unsubstantiated claims by prominent political figures and their allies. Critics suggest this approach veers into uncharted territory for the department, moving beyond its traditional role.
The department’s actions are reportedly part of a broader administrative strategy to scrutinize previous elections and potentially influence future electoral cycles. For instance, in Colorado, the Justice Department specifically demanded “all records” pertinent to the 2024 election and any retained data from the 2020 election. This wide-ranging request highlights an interest in detailed historical and contemporary election metrics, raising questions about the scope and intent of such comprehensive data acquisition.
Moreover, department lawyers have actively proposed meetings with officials in multiple states to establish formal information-sharing agreements, ostensibly to bolster federal enforcement of election laws. This proactive stance, outlined in internal communications, positions the states as key partners in the department’s newly defined mission to protect “the integrity of Federal elections,” reflecting a top-down directive to centralize and analyze election-related intelligence.
However, this heightened federal involvement has not been without scrutiny. Legal experts and former department officials, including David Becker, a former department lawyer and head of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, have expressed concerns. They argue that the department traditionally avoids “fishing expeditions” for potential law violations and maintains a degree of independence from presidential directives, suggesting that current activities might challenge these established norms.
States like Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Utah, and Wisconsin have confirmed receiving direct requests for their statewide voter registration lists. Furthermore, specific counties within California, including Los Angeles and San Francisco, faced demands for detailed records such as the number of noncitizens removed from rolls, voting histories, dates of birth, and identification numbers.
These federal directives are explicitly tied to the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, a Republican-sponsored legislative proposal advocating for mandatory proof of U.S. citizenship for federal election voting. Additionally, the department’s communications frequently reference a March executive order from the current administration, which instructs the attorney general to pursue information-sharing agreements with state election officials “to the maximum extent possible,” underscoring a cohesive and government-wide push for data centralization.
Responses from state election officials have been varied. While some states have complied by providing public versions of voter registration lists, often with sensitive personal information redacted, others have refused outright, citing obligations under federal and state privacy laws. Concerns about how this sensitive voter data will be utilized and protected remain a significant point of contention and discussion among state election administrators, as highlighted by organizations like the National Association of Secretaries of State.
