On December 12, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice dramatically escalated its campaign to obtain detailed voter information nationwide, filing lawsuits against four additional states—Colorado, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Nevada—as well as Fulton County, Georgia. The legal actions, which demand access to comprehensive voter registration lists and, in some cases, 2020 election ballots, have ignited a fierce debate about election security, voter privacy, and the boundaries of federal and state authority.
According to the Associated Press, the Justice Department’s lawsuits allege that these states and Fulton County failed to comply with federal law by refusing to provide statewide voter registration lists and, in Georgia’s case, records from the contentious 2020 presidential election. The department is seeking information that includes voters’ full names, dates of birth, residential addresses, driver’s license numbers, and partial Social Security numbers. The scale of the effort is striking: the DOJ has now sued 18 states and requested voter data from at least 40, underscoring the breadth of its push for election transparency—or, as some critics argue, overreach.
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon, speaking for the department’s Civil Rights Division, was unequivocal about the stakes. “States have the statutory duty to preserve and protect their constituents from vote dilution,” Dhillon declared in a press 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 cite the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, and the Help America Vote Act of 2002 as granting the federal government authority to inspect voter registration lists and ensure effective maintenance of those rolls. The DOJ’s complaint against Colorado, for example, specifically references compliance with the National Voting Rights Act and HAVA. The department’s lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court of Colorado, demands unredacted voter registration information—including sensitive personal identifiers—within five days of a court order.
But the pushback from state officials has been swift and resolute. Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat, has emerged as a vocal opponent of the DOJ’s demands. “We will not hand over Coloradans’ sensitive voting information to Donald Trump,” Griswold said in a statement on December 12. “He does not have a legal right to the information. I will continue to protect our elections and democracy, and look forward to winning this case.” Griswold’s office has provided publicly available voter information but has refused to supply unredacted data, citing both legal and security concerns.
Griswold’s resistance is not isolated. Nevada Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar, also a Democrat, voiced similar apprehensions. “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,” Aguilar stated in a press release. “The Constitution makes it clear: elections are run by the states.” Aguilar emphasized his duty to follow state law and protect voters’ sensitive information, warning of the potential consequences if such data fell into the wrong hands.
Hawaii’s legal team has likewise pushed back. In a letter to the Justice Department dated September 22, 2025, Deputy Solicitor General Thomas Hughes argued that state law requires all personal voter registration information—except for a voter’s full name, voting district or precinct, and voter status—to be kept confidential. Hughes asserted that the federal statutes cited by the DOJ do not compel states to turn over electronic registration lists or “uniquely or highly sensitive personal information” about voters.
The legal wrangling is not confined to these four states. In Georgia, the DOJ’s lawsuit targets Fulton County for refusing to provide records from the 2020 general election. The complaint demands all used and void ballots, stubs of all ballots, signature envelopes, and corresponding digital files. As reported by Axios and other outlets, the DOJ contends that Fulton County’s refusal violates the Civil Rights Act of 1960 and seeks a court order compelling the county to surrender the documents within five days. Fulton County Clerk Ché Alexander has maintained that the records are under seal and cannot be released without a court order, a stance the DOJ is now challenging in federal court.
Critics of the Justice Department’s campaign, including voting rights advocates and some Democratic officials, have raised alarms about the potential misuse of sensitive voter data. Max Flugrath, communications director at Fair Fight, a voting rights organization, accused the DOJ of “recycling conspiracy theories that’ve been disproven in court, in audits, and by independent experts.” He argued, “They’re abusing federal power to manufacture a reason to restrict ballot access in 2026 and beyond.”
Underlying these disputes is a broader context of mistrust and political polarization. The Trump administration has characterized the lawsuits as part of an effort to ensure election security, particularly by identifying noncitizens on voter rolls—a process that, according to officials cited by Stateline, involves sharing the requested data with the Department of Homeland Security. Yet, this rationale has done little to assuage the concerns of state officials wary of federal overreach or voter intimidation.
The situation has also exposed divisions within states. In Wisconsin, the bipartisan Elections Commission voted 5-1 against turning over unredacted voter information to the Trump administration, citing state law protections for voters’ personal data. Republican commissioner Robert Spindell, who cast the lone dissenting vote, warned that rejecting the request could invite a federal lawsuit, but the majority held firm, arguing that compliance would be illegal under state law.
For its part, the Justice Department insists that its actions are grounded in federal law and necessary to “protect the integrity of the ballot.” The lawsuits demand compliance within a tight timeframe, reflecting the urgency with which the department views the matter. The DOJ has also offered to address privacy concerns through memoranda of understanding, though these overtures have so far failed to sway reluctant states.
As the legal battles unfold, the outcome could have significant implications for the administration of the 2026 election cycle and beyond. The clash between federal demands for transparency and state-level commitments to privacy and autonomy is shaping up to be a defining issue in the ongoing debate over election integrity in the United States. With both sides digging in, courts across the country will soon be called upon to decide where the line should be drawn between protecting the ballot and protecting the voter.
