On September 25, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) took the extraordinary step of suing six states—California, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania—after they refused to hand over detailed voter registration data demanded by federal attorneys earlier this year. The move, which follows similar lawsuits filed against Oregon and Maine just the week before, marks an escalation in the federal government’s wide-reaching push to obtain sensitive voter information from states across the country, according to the Associated Press and other major outlets.
The lawsuits, filed in the federal districts of each targeted state, allege that the states are violating federal law by withholding not just basic voter roll data, but also highly personal information including full names, dates of birth, addresses, driver’s license numbers, and the last four digits of Social Security numbers for millions of Americans. The DOJ claims this information is essential for enforcing the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) and the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), statutes designed to ensure that states have effective programs for maintaining accurate voter rolls and preventing ineligible individuals from casting ballots.
Attorney General Pam Bondi, in a statement announcing the lawsuits, asserted, “Clean voter rolls are the foundation of free and fair elections. Every state has a responsibility to ensure that voter registration records are accurate, accessible, and secure—states that don’t fulfill that obligation will see this Department of Justice in court.” Bondi’s message was clear: states that resist federal demands for data will face legal consequences.
The DOJ’s requests have varied in detail, but generally sought comprehensive lists of registered voters, along with personal data such as driver’s license numbers and partial Social Security numbers. Some states, like Indiana, have already complied, becoming the first known to provide sensitive personal data. Others have only released publicly available data or invited DOJ attorneys to make standard public records requests. Still, several have refused outright, citing state privacy laws and constitutional concerns about federal overreach, as reported by the Pennsylvania Capital-Star and Boston Globe.
New Hampshire’s Secretary of State, David Scanlan, was among those who stood firm. After receiving DOJ requests in June and again in August for the state’s voter registration list—including names, dates of birth, addresses, and full driver’s license and Social Security numbers—Scanlan declined, citing state law that requires such information to be kept “private and confidential.” In an August 28 letter, Scanlan wrote, “There does not appear to be any provision under federal law that compels the production of voter registration data superseding the provision of New Hampshire statutes that I must follow.”
Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, who is also named in one of the lawsuits, echoed similar concerns. On September 23, 2025, while participating in an online panel, she called the DOJ’s demand for personal voter data a “power grab” ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. “It’s important for every Michigander to understand what’s at stake here—the U.S. Justice Department is trying to get us to turn over the private, personal information of more than 8 million state residents. That includes people’s driver’s license numbers, Social Security numbers and other personally identifiable information,” Benson said, as reported by the Detroit Free Press. “I told them they can’t have it. I’m required to follow the law. State and federal law include strict privacy protections that keep people’s personal data confidential and keep everyone safe from identity theft.”
The DOJ, for its part, insists that the data is necessary to ensure that states are conducting proper voter list maintenance and preventing fraud. Assistant U.S. Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division stated, “Clean voter rolls protect American citizens from voting fraud and abuse, and restore their confidence that their states’ elections are conducted properly, with integrity, and in compliance with the law.”
The lawsuits also allege that some states, particularly Michigan, are not doing enough to keep their voter rolls up-to-date. The DOJ cited data from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission for the 2022-24 election cycle, noting that Michigan sent out confirmation notices to only 4.5% of registered voters—well below the national average of 19.5%—and removed 4.2% of voters from its rolls, compared to a 9.1% national average. However, as the Detroit Free Press points out, these averages vary widely across states, and there is no uniform federal standard for voter roll maintenance.
Underlying the legal battle is a deeper clash over the balance of power between state and federal governments. The U.S. Constitution grants states the authority to administer elections, and many state officials argue that federal law does not override state privacy protections. Election officials have also voiced concerns that the DOJ’s requests could be used for purposes beyond voter roll maintenance, such as searching for noncitizens on the rolls—a move that has raised alarm among critics of the Trump administration, especially in the wake of ongoing claims about illegal voting and election integrity.
Indeed, the Associated Press found that all eight states currently being sued by the DOJ are led by Democratic governors, except for New Hampshire, which has a Republican governor. This has fueled speculation about the political motivations behind the lawsuits, especially as the nation heads into another contentious election cycle. Critics worry that the DOJ’s actions could be used to disqualify or intimidate voters, or to cast doubt on the legitimacy of state-run elections.
Despite the DOJ’s assurances that it will comply with federal privacy laws in handling the data, state officials remain skeptical. Benson, for example, has repeatedly questioned the necessity and timing of the federal demands. “This kind of request is not normal,” she said after the lawsuit was filed. “Why is this happening now? Why does the federal government want access to everyone’s personal information? I have asked them these questions. Other secretaries of state—both Democrats and Republicans—have also asked them these questions. They refuse to give us a straight answer.”
Federal courts have occasionally weighed in on related disputes. In 2024, a federal judge dismissed a claim against Benson, emphasizing that the NVRA requires states to make a “reasonable effort” to remove ineligible voters but also to ensure that eligible applicants are not disenfranchised. The judge noted, “The NVRA obligates Michigan to ‘ensure’ that ‘any eligible applicant is registered to vote,’ and to make a ‘reasonable effort’ to remove the names of ineligible voters.”
As the legal battle unfolds, the stakes are high for both sides. The DOJ argues that its efforts are necessary to safeguard the integrity of American elections and prevent fraud, however rare it may be. State officials, meanwhile, are determined to protect the privacy of their residents and uphold the principle of state control over elections. With lawsuits now pending in multiple federal courts, the outcome could have far-reaching implications for how voter data is handled and how elections are administered in the years ahead.
The confrontation between the federal government and the states over voter data is more than a technical dispute—it’s a reflection of deeper tensions about privacy, power, and the future of American democracy.
