The Justice Department wants every state's unredacted voter file—names, addresses, dates of birth, driver's license numbers, and partial Social Security numbers for roughly 160 million registered voters. Since May 2025, DOJ has demanded these records from at least 44 states. Twenty-five jurisdictions refused and are now being sued. In late January 2026, Attorney General Pam Bondi escalated tactics by conditioning the removal of ICE and CBP agents from Minneapolis on Minnesota providing voter rolls and welfare data, drawing accusations of coercion from state officials and Senate Democrats.
Federal judges in California and Oregon have dismissed the lawsuits, finding DOJ lacks statutory authority. A Georgia judge threw out the case on procedural grounds—wrong courthouse—but DOJ refiled. On January 28, 2026, the FBI executed an unprecedented search warrant at Fulton County's election office, seizing 700 boxes containing all 2020 ballots and voter rolls. Fulton County announced legal action on February 2 to challenge the warrant and keep records in Georgia. On the same day, Georgia's Republican-controlled Senate voted 31-22 along party lines to urge Secretary of State Raffensperger to comply with DOJ demands, though the resolution is nonbinding and Raffensperger continues to refuse, citing state law. Twenty-eight Senate Democrats set a February 12 deadline for DOJ's written response and demanded a February 26 briefing. The legal battle will likely reach the Supreme Court.
Images from Openverse under Creative Commons licenses.
Videos from YouTube.
Interactive
Exploring all sides of a story is often best achieved with
Play.
Benjamin Franklin
(1706-1790) ·Enlightenment · wit
Fictional AI pastiche — not real quote.
"A government that demands the private particulars of every citizen in the name of protecting elections reminds me of the man who burns down his house to roast a pig. One wonders whether the fox claiming to guard the henhouse grows more dangerous when he insists all hens be catalogued, numbered, and centrally registered for their own safety."
100% found this insightful
Ayn Rand
(1905-1982) ·Cold War · philosophy
Fictional AI pastiche — not real quote.
"The spectacle of federal bureaucrats demanding a national registry of citizens while states invoke their sovereignty is less a constitutional crisis than a turf war between rival gangs of power-lusters—each claiming to protect your rights while scrambling to catalog you like inventory in a warehouse. The only principle at stake is which level of government gets to treat free individuals as livestock to be counted, tracked, and managed."
100% found this insightful
Ever wondered what historical figures would say about today's headlines?
Sign up to generate historical perspectives on this story.
Click a figure to generate their perspective on this story
Debate Arena
Two rounds, two personas, one winner. You set the crossfire.
Choose Your Battle
Watch two AI personas debate this story using real evidence
Make predictions and set the crossfire to earn XP and cred
Select Your Champions
Choose one persona for each side of the debate
DEBATE TOPIC
SIDE A (PRO)
Select debater for this side:
✓
SIDE B (CON)
Select debater for this side:
✓
Choose personas with different perspectives for a more dynamic debate
VS
Get ready to make your prediction...
Round of
Claim
Evidence
Stakes
Crossfire Answer
Closing Statement
Claim
Evidence
Stakes
Crossfire Answer
Closing Statement
Your Crossfire Question
Generating arguments...
Who's Got This Round?
Make your prediction before the referee scores
Correct predictions earn +20 XP
Evidence
40%
Logic
30%
Detail
20%
Style
10%
Round Results
Your Pick!
+20 XP
Your Pick
Not this time
Evidence (40%)
Logic (30%)
Detail (20%)
Style (10%)
Overall Score
/10
Your Pick!
+20 XP
Your Pick
Not this time
Evidence (40%)
Logic (30%)
Detail (20%)
Style (10%)
Overall Score
/10
Set the Crossfire
Pick the question both personas must answer in the final round
Crafting crossfire questions...
Choosing a question earns +10 XP crossfire bonus
🏆
Total XP Earned
Cred Change
Predictions
Debate Oracle! You called every round!
Sharp Instincts! You know your debaters!
The Coin Flip Strategist! Perfectly balanced!
The Contrarian! Bold predictions!
Inverse Genius! Try betting the opposite next time!
XP Breakdown
Base completion+20 XP
Rounds played ( rounds x 5 XP)
+ XP
Correct predictions ( correct x 20 XP)
+ XP
Crossfire bonus+10 XP
Accuracy
%
Prediction History
Round
You picked:
✓✗
Keep debating to level up your credibility and unlock achievements
Who Said What?
WHO SAID WHAT?
Can you match the quotes to the right people?
Rounds
People
Score:
Round /
streak
-- ?
Score:
Round /
streak
Next Up
Round
of
points
Correct
Best Streak
Time Bonus
People Involved
Harmeet Dhillon
Assistant Attorney General, DOJ Civil Rights Division (Leading the litigation campaign)
Brad Raffensperger
Georgia Secretary of State (Defendant in dismissed lawsuit; running for governor)
David O. Carter
U.S. District Judge, Central District of California (First judge to rule on merits; dismissed California case)
C. Ashley Royal
Senior U.S. District Judge, Middle District of Georgia (Dismissed Georgia case on venue grounds)
Susan Beals
Virginia Elections Commissioner (Defendant in DOJ lawsuit filed January 17, 2026)
Josh Kaul
Wisconsin Attorney General (Defending state against DOJ lawsuit; filed motion to dismiss)
Stephanie Thomas
Connecticut Secretary of State (Defendant in DOJ lawsuit; ACLU intervened on behalf of Connecticut voter January 29)
Pam Bondi
U.S. Attorney General (Leading DOJ voter data campaign; drew accusations of coercion over Minnesota)
Steve Simon
Minnesota Secretary of State (Refused DOJ demands; called Bondi letter coercive)
Alex Padilla
U.S. Senator (D-CA), Ranking Member, Senate Rules Committee (Leading Congressional opposition to DOJ voter data campaign)
Tim Walz
Minnesota Governor (Received Bondi letter conditioning ICE withdrawal on data provision)
Kash Patel
FBI Director (Defended Fulton County search warrant execution)
Organizations Involved
DO
DOJ Civil Rights Division
Federal Agency
Status: Plaintiff in voter data lawsuits
The DOJ division responsible for enforcing federal civil rights laws, now leading litigation to compel states to surrender voter registration data.
BR
Brennan Center for Justice
Legal Advocacy Organization
Status: Tracking litigation; advising states
A nonpartisan law and policy institute that maintains the most comprehensive public tracker of the DOJ voter data demands and lawsuits.
WI
Wisconsin Elections Commission
State Election Agency
Status: Defendant in DOJ lawsuit; facing intervention by voting rights groups
Wisconsin's bipartisan state election agency responsible for administering elections and maintaining voter registration records.
AC
ACLU Voting Rights Project
Legal Advocacy Organization
Status: Intervening in multiple state lawsuits to protect voter privacy
The national ACLU's voting rights litigation team, working to block DOJ's voter data collection efforts across multiple states.
AC
ACLU of Connecticut
Legal Advocacy Organization
Status: Intervened in Connecticut lawsuit to protect voter privacy
The Connecticut affiliate of the ACLU, working to block DOJ access to voter data in the state.
Timeline
Georgia Senate Votes to Pressure Raffensperger
Political
Republican-controlled Georgia Senate passes resolution 31-22 along party lines urging Secretary of State Raffensperger to turn over unredacted voter list containing 8 million voters' personal information to DOJ. Nonbinding resolution opposed by Raffensperger and Democrats. Raffensperger says office will not violate state law protecting voters' SSNs, driver's license numbers, and birth dates.
Fulton County Announces Lawsuit Over FBI Raid
Legal
Fulton County Commissioner Marvin Arrington Jr. announces county will file legal challenge to January 28 FBI warrant that seized 700 boxes of 2020 ballots and voter rolls. County seeks to challenge warrant scope, keep records in Georgia under seal, obtain forensic accounting of seized materials, and protect sensitive voter information.
Senators Padilla and Durbin lead 28 Senate Democrats in sending letter to Attorney General Bondi demanding DOJ stop its "unlawful pressure campaign" to obtain voter data and raise alarm about Minnesota coercion attempt. Letter seeks written responses by February 12 and briefing by February 26.
ACLU Connecticut Intervenes in Lawsuit
Legal
ACLU of Connecticut files motion to intervene in United States v. Thomas on behalf of Connecticut voter, arguing DOJ request threatens voter privacy and enables disenfranchisement.
FBI Raids Fulton County Election Office
Investigation
FBI executes search warrant at Fulton County, Georgia election hub, seizing all 2020 physical ballots, tabulator tapes, and voter rolls. About 25 FBI personnel involved. Director of National Intelligence spotted in FBI evidence truck during operation. Fulton officials not notified beforehand.
Oregon Case Formally Dismissed
Legal
U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai issues final dismissal of DOJ lawsuit against Oregon, ruling the DOJ's request letter did not satisfy legal requirements and the Civil Rights Act of 1960 was meant for discrimination investigations, not mass data collection.
Bondi Conditions ICE Withdrawal on Minnesota Data
Political
Attorney General Bondi sends letter to Minnesota Governor Walz hours after ICE fatally shot Alex Pretti, demanding voter rolls and welfare data as condition for removing ICE/CBP from Minneapolis. Minnesota Secretary of State Simon rejects demand as "outrageous attempt to coerce" state, calling it violation of state and federal law.
Georgia Lawsuit Dismissed on Venue
Legal
Senior U.S. District Judge C. Ashley Royal dismisses DOJ lawsuit against Georgia, ruling it was filed in Macon instead of Atlanta. DOJ can refile.
Georgia Senate Targets Raffensperger
Political
Georgia Senate Ethics Committee passes resolution demanding Secretary of State Raffensperger turn over unredacted voter data to DOJ.
Wisconsin Seeks Dismissal
Legal
Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul files motion to dismiss DOJ lawsuit, arguing the motion is procedurally improper and state law prohibits releasing sensitive voter data.
Virginia Becomes 25th Jurisdiction Sued
Legal
DOJ sues Virginia for refusing to provide voter registration data. Harmeet Dhillon announces 'Virginia becomes the next state sued for ignoring federal law!'
California and Oregon Cases Dismissed
Legal
Federal judges in California and Oregon dismiss DOJ lawsuits. Judge Carter calls the effort a 'fishing expedition' that would chill voter registration.
Voting Rights Groups Intervene in Illinois
Legal
Labor and voting rights groups, including Common Cause Illinois, file motion to intervene in DOJ lawsuit to protect voter privacy.
Wisconsin Voters Seek Intervention
Legal
ACLU files motion on behalf of Common Cause and three Wisconsin voters to intervene in DOJ lawsuit against Wisconsin Elections Commission.
Connecticut and Arizona Sued
Legal
DOJ adds Connecticut and Arizona to ongoing litigation. A Trump-appointed judge in Connecticut orders the state to show cause.
DOJ Offers States Settlement Deal
Legal
DOJ proposes memorandums of understanding allowing states to confidentially share data and remove voters flagged by federal databases.
Lawsuit Count Reaches 18 States
Legal
DOJ adds Colorado, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Nevada to the litigation.
December Lawsuit Wave Begins
Legal
DOJ sues Delaware, Maryland, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington state.
Six More States Sued
Legal
DOJ expands litigation to California, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania.
First States Sued: Maine and Oregon
Legal
DOJ files first lawsuits against states refusing to provide voter data, targeting Maine and Oregon.
DOJ Invokes Civil Rights Act of 1960
Legal
After states resist citing NVRA and HAVA limitations, DOJ begins citing the Civil Rights Act of 1960's records inspection provision.
First Formal Demand Letters Sent
Investigation
DOJ sends sweeping formal requests to states for statewide voter registration lists and names of election officials.
DOJ Begins Demanding Voter Data
Investigation
Justice Department sends first letters to states demanding unredacted voter registration files, including driver's license and Social Security numbers.
First Commission Disbanded
Background
Trump disbands the commission without it ever receiving state voter data or issuing findings. No evidence of widespread fraud was found.
First Commission Requests Voter Data
Background
Kobach asks every state for voter information including Social Security numbers. 44 states and D.C. refuse some or all data.
Trump Creates First Voter Fraud Commission
Background
President Trump signs executive order creating the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, chaired by Vice President Pence with Kris Kobach as vice chair.
Scenarios
1
Supreme Court Sides with DOJ, States Must Comply
Discussed by: Legal analysts at SCOTUSblog and election law scholars anticipating appeals from California and Oregon rulings
If the Supreme Court accepts appeals and rules that the Civil Rights Act of 1960's records inspection provision applies to state voter files, all 50 states would be required to provide unredacted voter rolls to federal authorities. DOJ would gain access to sensitive data for approximately 160 million registered voters, which it plans to cross-reference with DHS databases to identify alleged non-citizens.
2
Courts Block Campaign, States Retain Control
Discussed by: The Brennan Center for Justice, ACLU, and voting rights advocates who cite the California and Oregon dismissals as indicators
Federal appeals courts uphold the California and Oregon dismissals, finding the Civil Rights Act of 1960 was never intended to authorize mass collection of voter data. Other district courts follow the precedent. DOJ's litigation campaign stalls without Supreme Court intervention. States that refused to comply maintain control of their voter files, and the effort mirrors the fate of the 2017 commission.
3
Mixed Rulings Create Patchwork Compliance
Discussed by: Election administration experts tracking divergent rulings from Trump and Obama-appointed judges
Federal judges split along ideological lines. Trump-appointed judges in some districts, like Connecticut, order states to comply. Clinton and Obama appointees dismiss cases. The result is a patchwork where some states provide data and others don't, creating an incomplete federal database and prolonged circuit-level litigation before potential Supreme Court review.
4
States Preemptively Change Laws to Block Data Sharing
Discussed by: State legislators and secretaries of state in Democratic-led states considering statutory changes
States pass or strengthen laws explicitly prohibiting the release of sensitive voter data to federal authorities without specific statutory authorization. This fortifies state defenses against future demands regardless of court outcomes but sets up a longer-term federalism battle over election administration authority.
Historical Context
Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (2017-2018)
May 2017 - January 2018
What Happened
President Trump created a commission chaired by Vice President Mike Pence and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach to investigate alleged voter fraud. Kobach requested voter data including Social Security numbers from all 50 states. 44 states and D.C. refused some or all information.
Outcome
Short Term
Trump disbanded the commission in January 2018 after it received no state voter data, faced multiple lawsuits, and generated bipartisan backlash. Commission member Matthew Dunlap later revealed it found no evidence of widespread fraud.
Long Term
The commission's failure demonstrated that states—including Republican-led states—would resist federal voter data collection on privacy and federalism grounds. The current DOJ effort uses litigation rather than voluntary requests to overcome that resistance.
Why It's Relevant Today
The 2017 commission and the current DOJ campaign seek the same data for similar stated purposes. The key difference: DOJ now uses federal lawsuits citing the Civil Rights Act to compel compliance rather than relying on voluntary cooperation.
Civil Rights Act of 1960 and Voter Records Inspection
1960-1965
What Happened
Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1960 to expose racist voter registration practices in the Jim Crow South. Title III required election officials to preserve voting records for 22 months and produce them upon written demand by the Attorney General. The provision helped prove that registrars applied different standards to Black and white applicants.
Outcome
Short Term
Over 16 months, Attorneys General William Rogers and Robert Kennedy inspected voting records in 26 Southern counties. Records revealed white applicants passed literacy tests that illiterate white citizens didn't take, while Black applicants faced impossible standards.
Long Term
Evidence gathered under the 1960 Act helped build the case for the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The records inspection provision was designed for targeted investigations of discrimination—not mass collection of voter data nationwide.
Why It's Relevant Today
DOJ's current use of this 1960 provision to demand unredacted voter files from all states inverts its original purpose. Judge Carter called this 'using civil rights legislation which was enacted for an entirely different purpose' to centralize voter data.
Judicial Watch NVRA Lawsuits (2010s-Present)
2012-Present
What Happened
The conservative legal group Judicial Watch has filed numerous lawsuits against states and counties for allegedly failing to remove ineligible voters from rolls under the National Voter Registration Act. Settlements resulted in Los Angeles County agreeing to remove up to 1.6 million inactive registrations and Ohio implementing a challenged cleanup program upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018.
Outcome
Short Term
States and counties entered consent decrees requiring more aggressive voter roll maintenance. Critics argued the settlements pressured officials into removing eligible voters.
Long Term
These private lawsuits established legal precedent that NVRA compliance could be enforced through litigation. The DOJ's current campaign represents a federal government version of this approach, but with far broader scope and access demands.
Why It's Relevant Today
The DOJ effort escalates the private NVRA enforcement model to federal scale. While Judicial Watch sought to force states to purge voters, DOJ seeks the underlying data to identify purge targets directly.
