The standoff between several U.S. states and the federal government over access to voter data has intensified, with Oregon, Maine, and Rhode Island at the center of a legal and political tug-of-war. On September 16, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed lawsuits against Oregon and Maine for refusing to hand over unredacted statewide voter registration lists and related maintenance information. The following day, Rhode Island’s Secretary of State, Gregg Amore, publicly rebuffed a similar DOJ request, signaling a growing resistance among state officials to what they see as federal overreach into voter privacy.
The DOJ’s lawsuits, announced in a 22-page complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Eugene, Oregon, specifically name Oregon Secretary of State Tobias Read and Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows. The suits allege that both states violated federal law by refusing to provide electronic copies of their voter registration databases and details about how they maintain and update those lists. The DOJ argues that access to this information is essential for ensuring the integrity of the electoral process and upholding federal election laws.
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon, a former legal adviser to President Donald Trump’s 2020 campaign, has been the public face of the DOJ’s effort. According to the Oregon Capital Chronicle, Dhillon stated, “American citizens have a right to feel confident in the integrity of our electoral process, and the refusal of certain states to protect their citizens against vote dilution will result in legal consequences.” Dhillon’s background includes work with campaigns seeking to overturn election results in the 2022 midterms, notably in Arizona, adding a layer of political sensitivity to the DOJ’s current actions.
Oregon, which boasts a pioneering vote-by-mail system and more than 3 million registered voters, has been particularly vocal in its opposition. Secretary of State Tobias Read, a Democrat elected on promises to defend the state’s voting system, told the Oregon Capital Chronicle, “If the president wants to use the DOJ to go after his political opponents and undermine our elections, I look forward to seeing them in court. I stand by my oath to the people of Oregon, and I will protect their rights and privacy.”
The DOJ’s request wasn’t limited to basic voter information. Federal officials sought full names, dates of birth, residential addresses, and even driver’s license numbers or partial Social Security numbers for every registered voter in Oregon. Read pushed back, arguing that providing such data would not only violate Oregonians’ constitutional right to privacy but would also run afoul of state laws. Instead, Read offered the DOJ the same public records available to anyone willing to pay a $500 fee—lists containing names, addresses, political party affiliations, and birth years, but not the more sensitive data sought by federal officials.
The state’s stance is further complicated by its participation in the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), a nonprofit consortium of 25 states and Washington, D.C., designed to help states identify duplicate registrations and track voters who move. Oregon does provide certain voter data to ERIC, but the organization applies a “cryptographic one-way hash” to sensitive information like Social Security and driver’s license numbers. This process, as described on ERIC’s website and cited by the Oregon Capital Chronicle, ensures that no human can read the underlying data, preserving privacy while allowing for accurate cross-state checks.
Yet, the DOJ’s insistence on receiving unredacted data in a database—albeit one submitted via encrypted email—has raised alarms about potential misuse and the precedent it could set. The federal government also sought information about individuals removed from voter rolls due to noncitizenship, court-determined incompetence, or felony convictions. Notably, Oregon recently discovered that more than 1,500 people had been erroneously added to its voter rolls in 2024 due to clerical errors at the Motor Vehicle Services Division, which has automatically registered eligible citizens since 2016.
Oregon’s resistance is also rooted in its 1987 sanctuary law, the first of its kind in the nation. This law bars state and local officials from sharing information or resources with federal immigration authorities unless compelled by a court order. The DOJ, meanwhile, has acknowledged sharing voter roll data with the Department of Homeland Security, a detail that further heightens concerns among privacy advocates and immigrant communities.
Rhode Island has found itself on the same battleground. After more than two months of deliberation, Secretary of State Gregg Amore delivered a firm “no” to the DOJ’s request for sensitive voter data, offering only the public voter rolls (which are available for a $25 fee) at no cost to the federal government. Amore, a former high school history teacher, cited both the E-Government Act of 2002 and the Privacy Act of 1974 in his response, emphasizing the legal protections for personally identifiable information. In a statement quoted by Rhode Island Current, Amore declared, “I will not participate in an unsubstantiated search for data and information.”
Amore’s letter to Assistant Attorney General Dhillon made clear that only a proper legal basis or a court order would compel him to release more than the public voter lists. “Registering to vote requires the provision of personal information – and that information is provided with the trust and understanding that the government here in Rhode Island will do everything in our power to protect it. This is not a responsibility I take lightly,” Amore stated. He also criticized the current presidential administration for what he described as interfering in elections and sowing distrust among the public—a sentiment echoed by other state officials facing similar requests.
The DOJ’s push for expanded voter data access is not new. In 2017, President Trump’s Election Integrity Commission sought similar information from all 50 states, including the last four digits of Social Security numbers. Rhode Island’s then-Secretary of State Nellie Gorbea and Governor Gina Raimondo refused to hand over anything beyond the standard public records, citing privacy concerns and legal constraints.
Responses to the DOJ’s current campaign have varied widely. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, at least 33 states have received written requests for voter information from the DOJ’s civil or criminal divisions. Some states, like Indiana, have complied fully, providing even Social Security and driver’s license numbers. Others, such as Maine, have taken a more combative stance—Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows told the DOJ to “go jump in the Gulf of Maine” during a July press conference, a quote that quickly made headlines.
The divide is not purely partisan, though the DOJ’s requests have primarily targeted Democratic and swing states. The controversy has reignited debates about the balance between election security and voter privacy, as well as the proper roles of state and federal governments in managing elections. While federal officials cite laws like the Help America Vote Act of 2002 and the Civil Rights Act of 1960 as justification for their probe, state officials argue that these statutes do not authorize blanket access to protected voter information outside of specific legal investigations or court orders.
With lawsuits now pending and state officials digging in their heels, the outcome of this dispute could have far-reaching implications for how voter data is handled across the country. The legal battles will test the limits of federal authority over state-run elections and may shape the contours of voter privacy for years to come.
As the courtroom drama unfolds, voters in Oregon, Maine, and Rhode Island are watching closely, weighing the trade-offs between electoral transparency and the right to keep their personal information secure.
