The Justice Department’s demand for voter data from states has sparked a contentious debate over election control and privacy rights as the 2026 midterm elections approach.
As the 2026 midterm elections draw near, a significant dispute is emerging between the federal government and individual states regarding the control of American elections. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has ordered at least 44 states and Washington, D.C., to provide comprehensive election records, including unredacted voter registration rolls. In some instances, the DOJ has also sought access to past ballots and voting equipment. This has led to a backlash, with more than 20 states and Washington, D.C., refusing to comply, prompting the federal government to file lawsuits against them.
“Accurate voter rolls are the cornerstone of fair and free elections, and too many states have fallen into a pattern of noncompliance with basic voter roll maintenance,” stated Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “The Department of Justice will continue filing proactive election integrity litigation until states comply with basic election safeguards.”
These demands have raised alarms about potential federal overreach. According to the Constitution, states are tasked with administering elections, not the federal government. Critics argue that the DOJ is attempting to assume a role it does not possess. The requested records contain sensitive personal information, including addresses and, in some cases, partial Social Security numbers or driver’s license numbers. State officials contend that providing such data poses privacy and security risks.
In parallel, Congress is deliberating new election laws under the SAVE America Act, which would impose stricter voter ID requirements, mandate more aggressive voter roll purges, and limit mail-in voting. Voting rights advocates warn that these measures could complicate the voting process for many individuals and escalate disputes over election outcomes.
During a briefing hosted by American Community Media on February 6, legal scholars and civil rights leaders discussed the growing debate over election control and the roles of courts, states, Congress, and voters as the midterms approach.
Justin Levitt, a national election law expert at Loyola Law School, emphasized that election administration is fundamentally a state responsibility. “The President is trying to project power that he does not have,” he said, explaining that while presidents possess broad authority in areas like tariffs and immigration enforcement, elections are distinct.
Levitt clarified that the President does not control the mechanisms of voting. “He doesn’t have his hand on the switch that makes things happen … state and local officials are the ones who control American elections.” He described the administration’s actions as “highly unusual” and “scary,” but noted that they do not directly alter how voting operates on the ground. Courts have blocked executive orders attempting to collect voter files from states.
He further stated that the directive from the DOJ “purports to instruct state officials what to do, and the states aren’t complying because they don’t have to. They don’t have to listen.” Levitt also highlighted that the President lacks the authority to nationalize or cancel elections, despite public threats to do so. He remarked that proposed voting restrictions appear stalled in the Senate “at least for now,” and characterized these proposals as “based in fear mongering about fraud that simply does not exist as a predicate for restricting access.”
One issue that concerns Levitt is mid-decade redistricting. He pointed to “highly unusual mid-decade redistricting for excessively partisan purposes” ahead of the midterms, predicting further changes to district lines in the coming months that may require voters to adapt to new representatives.
Despite these challenges, Levitt anticipates strong voter participation, suggesting that signs point to a “voter tsunami” in the fall. “Voters have agency here. Voters can push back both at the federal level and at the state level, and ultimately, the strongest pushback to restrictive laws comes through voters exercising their rights at the ballot box,” he asserted.
The DOJ contends that it requires voter registration data to ensure compliance with federal voter roll maintenance laws. However, many states have resisted, igniting a nationwide legal battle. Reports from the Brennan Center for Justice indicate that approximately half of all states, particularly those with Democratic governors, have outright refused the DOJ’s request. Officials in states like Minnesota, Maine, and New Hampshire argue that the demands violate state privacy laws and represent unconstitutional federal overreach.
Conversely, at least 11 to 13 Republican-led states have complied or shown a willingness to comply. Texas and Alaska have entered into “confidential memorandum of understanding” agreements to provide full voter lists, while Nebraska has shared sensitive information, including driver’s license numbers and partial Social Security numbers. Florida and Utah have submitted publicly available versions of their voter files, although even some Republican election officials have hesitated to share non-public data.
The legal conflict is now unfolding in federal courts nationwide. The DOJ has filed lawsuits against at least 24 states and Washington, D.C., to compel compliance. However, several federal judges in California, Oregon, and Michigan have dismissed these cases, with one California judge labeling the request “unprecedented and illegal.” These rulings indicate that courts are considering the constitutional limits on federal authority over state-run elections.
Danielle Lang, Vice President for Voting Rights & Rule of Law at the Campaign Legal Center, is among the lawyers challenging the administration’s actions. She represents organizations, including the League of United Latin American Citizens and the Secure Families Initiative. Lang noted that her team was the first to issue a legal challenge after the President signed an executive order aimed at increasing federal control over elections.
“We quickly won a preliminary injunction on what was the kind of most immediate threat, which was his command that the Election Assistance Commission changed the requirements for voter registration on the federal voter registration form,” she explained.
In addition to contesting the executive order, voting rights lawyers are fighting the DOJ’s efforts to obtain voter rolls and to restrict voter registration activities at naturalization ceremonies. Lang characterized the administration’s use of the Civil Rights Act to seek voter records as a “power grab.”
“They’ve been pretty clear in public about the purpose of hoovering up this data, and it has nothing to do with enforcing the Civil Rights Act. And courts have been able to see through that quite clearly,” she added.
John C. Yang, president and executive director of Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC), emphasized that voting rights are “a central pillar” in advancing civil and human rights, particularly for Asian Americans. “It’s not a privilege; it’s a right for all citizens,” he stated.
Yang pointed out that public polling consistently shows that Americans favor making voting easier, not harder. He cautioned that restrictions create unnecessary burdens unless there is clear evidence of their necessity. With approximately 24 million Asian Americans in the United States, making them the fastest-growing racial group, he noted that nearly 60 percent of eligible Asian Americans voted in the 2020 election, underscoring the significance of their vote.
However, Yang warned that Asian American voters continue to face challenges, including voter intimidation, redistricting, threats to language access, limits on early and absentee voting, deceptive practices, and racially motivated voter challenges. “The right to vote is under attack,” he asserted.
Yang also highlighted that Asian Americans are often perceived as “foreigners” rather than full participants in American civic life. As marginalized communities become more politically active, they sometimes encounter backlash. AAJC works to counter exclusionary laws and practices, assisting voters with disabilities and operating a language assistance hotline to help voters with limited English proficiency navigate ballots and election materials. The organization also monitors misinformation and disinformation in Asian languages, which can intimidate or discourage voters.
Andrea Senteno, DC Regional Counsel for MALDEF, a Latino legal civil rights organization, echoed Yang’s concerns, noting that Latino communities also face barriers to voting. She pointed to gaps in voter registration and turnout rates as evidence of ongoing suppression and discrimination.
“Some of the tactics that we see officials use to deny access to the ballot or to dilute the vote of the Latino community or other communities of color … those look like unlawful voter purges,” she stated.
Senteno cited restrictions on language assistance, mail ballots, voter registration drives, and proof-of-citizenship requirements, as well as recent calls for immigration enforcement presence at polling places. “They create intentional confusion and fear and distrust, which ultimately deters eligible voters from participating in elections,” she warned.
Despite these challenges, panelists emphasized that voters still possess power. “It is important for people to recognize what their rights are, to go into the ballot box. Look, our voices, our votes really matter,” Yang concluded.
As the legal battles continue and the midterm elections approach, the dynamics of voter data requests and election integrity will remain at the forefront of national discourse, shaping the future of American democracy.
According to India Currents.