The battle over voter privacy and federal oversight is heating up across the United States, as the Department of Justice (DOJ) has taken legal action against a growing list of states and localities for refusing to hand over sensitive voter data. In a move that has sent shockwaves through election offices nationwide, the DOJ announced on December 11, 2025, that it is suing Fulton County, Georgia, and its election clerk, Ché Alexander, for withholding voter records from the 2020 General Election. But Georgia is far from alone: the same day, new lawsuits were filed against Colorado, Massachusetts, Hawaii, and Nevada, bringing the total number of states facing federal litigation over voter data to eighteen.
At the heart of the dispute is the DOJ’s demand for comprehensive voter registration information. The agency’s requests, which began in earnest in May 2025, seek not only names and addresses but also voters’ driver’s license numbers, partial Social Security numbers, and digital files associated with ballot envelopes. The stated goal, according to DOJ officials, is to ensure compliance with the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) ahead of the 2026 midterm and 2028 presidential elections. As Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon and Acting Chief Eric Neff of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division wrote in court documents, “The Attorney General need only show that she made a ‘written demand’ for records covered by Section 301 of the [Civil Rights Act] and that ‘the person against whom an order for production is sought … has failed or refused’ to make such papers available for inspection, reproduction or copying.”
The DOJ’s nationwide effort has met with stiff resistance. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, demands for voter registration data have been sent to at least forty states since May, but only Indiana and Wyoming have fully complied. The vast majority of states have either refused outright or provided only publicly available information, excluding the most sensitive data such as Social Security numbers and driver’s license numbers.
Fulton County, Georgia, became a flashpoint after the DOJ subpoenaed the county in October 2025 for “all used and void ballots, stubs of all ballots, signature envelopes, and corresponding envelope digital files from the 2020 General Election.” The request followed a call from the Georgia State Election Board to investigate alleged “anomalies” in the 2020 election. County officials, however, refused to turn over the data or respond to federal demands, prompting the DOJ’s lawsuit.
Meanwhile, in Nevada, the DOJ’s legal action centers on the state’s refusal to provide voters’ driver’s license numbers and partial Social Security numbers. The DOJ had sent a letter in August 2025 requesting the information to assess Nevada’s compliance with federal voter registration laws. Nevada’s Secretary of State, Cisco Aguilar, a Democrat, pushed back against the request, calling it “unprecedented” and “an effort to intimidate us into turning over protected voter data.” In a statement released after the lawsuit was filed, Aguilar said, “The Department of Justice is making sweeping demands of states to hand over private voter data. Despite our simple requests for information on how they’re going to keep this data secure, they’ve given us no clear answers.” Aguilar further argued that “while these requests may seem like normal oversight, the federal government is using its power to try to intimidate states and influence how states administer elections ahead of the 2026 cycle.”
Colorado has also found itself in the DOJ’s crosshairs. Secretary of State Jena Griswold said her office complied with the initial DOJ request by sharing the publicly available data but refused to provide nonpublic information, such as voters’ full dates of birth and complete state driver’s license numbers or the last four digits of their Social Security numbers. On December 1, 2025, the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division directed Colorado to share the redacted sensitive voter data. Griswold responded forcefully, stating, “We will not comply with the Trump Department of Justice’s request for Coloradans’ sensitive voting information. The DOJ can take a hike; it does not have a legal right to the information. Colorado will not help Donald Trump undermine our elections and hurt the American people.” The DOJ’s lawsuit against Colorado alleges violations of Title III of the Civil Rights Act, specifically 52 U.S.C. § 20703, which allows the Attorney General to demand records related to voting and elections for inspection, reproduction, and copying.
Hawaii, too, is embroiled in the controversy. The DOJ sent a request letter on September 8, 2025, to Chief Elections Officer Scott Nago, demanding voter registration information including driver’s license numbers and partial Social Security numbers. Nago refused, citing Hawaii law, which considers most of the requested information confidential. The Hawaii Attorney General’s office responded to the lawsuit with a statement promising to “vigorously defend privacy rights of Hawai‘i’s voters and our lawful election practices against the federal administration’s continued, nationwide overreach.” Deputy Solicitor General Thomas Hughes explained in a letter to the DOJ that “it does not appear” any of the federal statutes cited actually require the state to produce the records.
Concerns about privacy and the potential misuse of voter data have fueled the states’ resistance. In November 2025, ten secretaries of state wrote to the DOJ and the Department of Homeland Security seeking clarification on how the data would be used and whether it would be shared with federal agencies. So far, neither department has provided clear answers. States have also pointed to the risk of exposing highly sensitive information that could be misused if it fell into the wrong hands.
The DOJ, however, maintains that its actions are necessary to uphold federal election laws and protect the integrity of the ballot. “States have the statutory duty to preserve and protect their constituents from vote dilution,” Assistant Attorney General Dhillon said in a statement. “At this Department of Justice, we will not permit states to jeopardize the integrity and effectiveness of elections by refusing to abide by our federal elections laws. If states will not fulfill their duty to protect the integrity of the ballot, we will.”
The lawsuits come against the backdrop of ongoing national debate over election integrity, voter privacy, and the role of federal versus state authority in administering elections. The push for heightened scrutiny of voter rolls intensified in the wake of former President Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election—claims that were widely rejected by courts and election officials, including some appointed by Trump himself. Nonetheless, federal officials argue that robust oversight is critical to ensuring that voter rolls are accurate and up to date, especially as the nation gears up for another contentious election cycle.
As the legal battles play out, the outcome could have far-reaching implications for how voter information is managed and protected in the United States. The tension between federal oversight and state autonomy shows no sign of easing, and with the 2026 midterms looming, the stakes for both election integrity and voter privacy have never felt higher.
