In a move that has ignited a fierce debate over privacy, state rights, and election security, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has pressed forward with sweeping requests for voter registration data from at least two dozen states—only to face a wave of pushback, legal questions, and outright refusals from state officials across the country. At the heart of the controversy is the DOJ's Civil Rights Division, which, over the past several months, has sought full voter rolls from at least 22 states, as part of what it claims is an effort to ensure the integrity of American elections by maintaining accurate voter lists.
The effort, which came to light through government documents reviewed by Reuters and reporting from Maine Public and the Latin Times, has evolved into a high-stakes standoff between federal and state authorities. The DOJ’s requests have grown in scope, now encompassing not just the names and addresses of registered voters, but also highly sensitive personal information—driver’s license numbers, dates of birth, and even the last four digits of Social Security numbers.
On September 8, 2025, Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat, became the latest official to formally reject what she described as an “unprecedented” and “overbroad” demand from the DOJ. Bellows told Maine Public, “This request raises some of the same issues regarding the privacy of the voters files. Federal law under the constitution doesn’t envision that DOJ can get anything on anybody just because they want it.” She emphasized that Maine law prohibits her from releasing sensitive voter information, and questioned the DOJ’s motives: “Given the surprising—indeed, to our knowledge unprecedented—scope of DOJ’s requests for information and records, I ask that DOJ please provide an explanation of why it is making those requests to Maine.”
The DOJ’s original letter to Maine, sent July 24, 2025, asked for a complete copy of the state’s voter registration list, including “all fields within that list,” as well as information on how Maine updates its voter rolls. Bellows rejected that request on August 8, 2025, citing both state law and the lack of a clear legal basis for the federal government’s demand. But the DOJ doubled down in an August 18 follow-up, not only insisting that federal law preempts state privacy statutes but also demanding copies of all original, completed voter registration applications submitted over a 19-month period—without redaction.
Bellows, in her written response, found it “difficult to understand what possible legitimate investigative purpose could be served by such an undifferentiated request for all registration applications in a 19-month period.” She also pointed out a practical hurdle: Maine’s nearly 480 municipalities, not her office, maintain the original registration applications. In a candid interview, Bellows went further, calling the DOJ’s requests a “fishing expedition” that “ignores the fact that the U.S. Constitution makes clear that the states, not the federal government, are in charge of elections.” She warned, “If they don’t [drop the demands], we’ll wait to see them in court.”
Maine is hardly alone in its resistance. New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and other states have also rebuffed the DOJ’s requests, citing privacy concerns, lack of legal justification, and the sheer breadth of the data being sought. According to Reuters, the general counsel of Minnesota’s Secretary of State’s office, Justin Erickson, wrote the DOJ to say it did not “identify any legal basis in its June 25 letter that would entitle it to Minnesota’s voter registration list. Nor did it explain how this information would be used, stored, and secured.”
Despite these objections, the DOJ has pressed on, with Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon insisting, “Clean voter rolls and basic election safeguards are requisites for free, fair, and transparent elections. The DOJ Civil Rights Division has a statutory mandate to enforce our federal voting rights laws, and ensuring the public’s confidence in the integrity of our elections is a top priority of this administration.”
Yet, behind the scenes, the DOJ’s intentions appear to be shifting. According to documents reviewed by Reuters, the department is now in active discussions with Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), a division of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), about sharing the collected voter data for use in criminal and immigration-related investigations. HSI reportedly plans to cross-check the voter information with its law enforcement databases to identify potential irregularities, including possible cases tied to immigration enforcement. A DHS spokesperson told Reuters that the information-sharing plan is part of efforts to prevent people “illegally in the country from corrupting our republic’s democratic process.”
This proposed data transfer has set off alarm bells among legal experts and civil rights advocates. Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School and former DOJ Voting Rights Section official, told Reuters, “The request for such data is not normal and it’s not lawful.” He and others warn that the plan raises significant privacy concerns and could conflict with what the DOJ originally told states about the purpose of the data collection. The Privacy Act, experts note, requires the government to provide public notice and comment before collecting records on individuals—something that appears not to have happened in this case.
The DOJ has cited its authority under the Help America Vote Act and the National Voter Registration Act, which require states to maintain accurate voting lists by removing ineligible voters such as the deceased or those with felony convictions. In an August 28, 2025, virtual meeting with secretaries of state and their staff, senior Civil Rights Division official Michael Gates reportedly pledged the department would “securely and discreetly” analyze the data and provide confidential feedback to states. However, the revelation that the DOJ is contemplating sharing the data with HSI for broader enforcement purposes, including immigration investigations, has only deepened skepticism among state officials.
The political context cannot be ignored. As Reuters pointed out, the effort dovetails with President Donald Trump’s core messaging—claims, often unsupported by evidence, that the U.S. elections system is rife with fraud, and a crackdown on immigration. The Trump administration has already ramped up data sharing between agencies, with the Internal Revenue Service reportedly providing DHS with taxpayer data to help locate undocumented immigrants facing deportation orders.
Some states have taken legal action to block the DOJ’s data requests. In South Carolina, a local judge recently ordered the state’s election commission not to hand over voter roll data after a voter challenged the move on privacy grounds. Harmeet Dhillon, the DOJ’s assistant attorney general, criticized the ruling, saying her office “will not stand for a state court judge’s hasty nullification of our federal voting laws.”
Meanwhile, the DOJ is also in discussions with another DHS office that operates the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program, which historically has helped states verify the immigration status of benefit applicants. However, because the voter data collected so far does not include Social Security numbers, SAVE cannot be used to verify voter registration records—prompting DOJ officials to turn to HSI’s databases instead.
As of now, the DOJ and DHS have not finalized how the sensitive voter data will be shared or used. But the standoff continues, with state officials, legal experts, and civil rights advocates watching closely. The outcome could set a precedent with far-reaching implications for voter privacy, state autonomy, and the future of federal oversight in American elections.
The coming months will reveal whether the federal government’s push for expansive voter data will survive the mounting legal and political challenges—or whether states’ resistance will force a reckoning over the limits of federal power in America’s decentralized election system.
