On September 8, 2025, Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows once again found herself at the center of a heated national debate over voter privacy, data security, and the role of federal oversight in state-run elections. In a formal letter addressed to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Bellows reaffirmed her refusal to provide the federal government with the state’s full voter registration list, including highly sensitive personal information belonging to nearly one million Mainers. This latest standoff—now in its second round of correspondence—has spotlighted both the legal complexities and the growing tensions between state and federal authorities over voter data access.
The saga began in July, when the DOJ’s civil rights division first requested Maine’s complete voter registration list, seeking not only the names and addresses of registered voters, but also driver’s license numbers, partial social security numbers, and full dates of birth. The federal agency also asked for the names of officials responsible for maintaining the list and information about ineligible voters identified due to noncitizenship. According to Maine Morning Star, the DOJ’s stated goal was to assess Maine’s compliance with the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), a federal law designed to ensure the accuracy and integrity of voter rolls.
Bellows, however, was not convinced. In her initial response on August 8, she officially declined the DOJ’s sweeping request, questioning both the necessity and the legality of such an extensive data grab. “The Department of Justice hasn’t shown any good reason for its fishing expedition for sensitive voter information on every American,” Bellows said in a statement released Monday. “The federal government has a terrible track record keeping private data safe. Their data demands appear to violate federal privacy laws and complying would put the privacy and data security of nearly one million Mainers at risk.”
But the story didn’t end there. On August 18, the DOJ doubled down, issuing a second, even broader demand. This new request not only reiterated the call for Maine’s full voter registration list but also asked for copies of all voter registration applications submitted in a 19-month period—from December 1, 2023, to July 1, 2025. The DOJ insisted that these documents be provided in unredacted form, and set a deadline of August 25 for compliance, offering encrypted email or the Justice Enterprise File Sharing system for secure transmission.
In its correspondence, the DOJ cited a raft of federal statutes to justify its demands, including the NVRA, the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), and the Civil Rights Act of 1960. The agency argued that these laws empower the Attorney General to require states to provide such records for the purpose of enforcing federal election standards. “The purpose of the request is to ascertain Maine’s compliance with the list maintenance requirements of the NVRA and HAVA,” wrote Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon in her August 18 letter. The DOJ further emphasized that any data received would be kept securely and treated in accordance with the Privacy Act, and that federal law preempts any conflicting state privacy statutes.
Bellows, in her September 8 response, remained steadfast in her opposition. She pointed out that the First Circuit Court of Appeals had expressly recognized that section 8(i) of the NVRA does not require disclosure of such sensitive personal information. “The Maine Legislature has expressly designated such PII as highly sensitive information within Maine’s central voter registration system and the First Circuit Court of Appeals has expressly recognized that section 8(i) of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) does not require disclosure of such information,” Bellows wrote, referencing the court’s 2024 decision in Pub. Int. Legal Found., Inc. v. Bellows.
Bellows also raised pointed questions about the DOJ’s compliance with federal privacy protections, specifically the Privacy Act of 1974 and the e-Government Act of 2004. She noted that the DOJ had not published a System of Records Notice (SORN) in the Federal Register, which would explain how voters’ personal information would be stored, accessed, or retained within DOJ systems. “It appears beyond debate that DOJ is compiling a system of records concerning individuals within the scope of the Privacy Act. Yet we have been unable to identify any System of Records Notice (SORN) published by DOJ in the federal register explaining to the public how, among other things, voters’ PII will be stored, accessed, and retained within DOJ systems,” she wrote.
Bellows went further, expressing concern that the DOJ intended to feed Maine’s voter file into an unidentified information technology system—potentially using the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program to verify voter citizenship. She noted that officials from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security had told her that SAVE data would be retained for ten years, ostensibly for audit purposes. “Just like the [Justice Department] is asking us to hand over an electronic file of all the voters in our state, it seems like the Department of Homeland Security is through this backdoor system also asking us to share voter information about every voter in our state,” Bellows told Stateline.
Throughout her communications, Bellows underscored the risk of data breaches and the potential for mishandling of sensitive information by the federal government. Citing recent news reports of alleged mishandling, she argued that Mainers “are entitled to know—and to provide input on—how their PII will be collected, stored, and used by the federal government.” She also questioned the DOJ’s legal rationale for invoking the Civil Rights Act of 1960, arguing that its provisions were designed to investigate infringements of constitutional voting rights, not to conduct sweeping reviews of list maintenance practices absent any allegations of noncompliance.
Maine is not alone in its resistance. According to Bellows, other states, including Pennsylvania and New Hampshire, have also declined the DOJ’s requests for sensitive voter data. “Mainers should be proud of our free, safe, and secure elections and our exemplary list maintenance practices. We have happily shared our policies and practices because we are proud of the work our state and local election officials do to protect election integrity, but DOJ’s demands for sensitive, personal information should raise alarm bells for everyone who cares about privacy and democracy,” she said in her public statement.
Despite the standoff, Bellows left the door open—if only slightly—for further dialogue. She wrote that if the DOJ provided additional information addressing her concerns about intended use and privacy, she would “carefully consider that information.” For now, however, her position is unequivocal: “At this time, however, I am unable to comply with the DOJ’s requests for unredacted information concerning all Maine voters.”
As the dispute drags on, it raises critical questions about the balance between federal oversight and state autonomy, the protection of personal data in an era of frequent breaches, and the public’s right to transparency in how their information is handled. With both sides entrenched and legal precedents cited by each, the outcome remains uncertain—but the stakes for voter privacy and the future of election administration have rarely felt higher.
