Voting
CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION’S
FOUNDATIONAL APPROACH
Since 1957, federal civil rights enforcement has protected the right to vote won through the struggle of Black Americans and other marginalized communities. The Civil Rights Division has enforced federal voting laws to dismantle discriminatory redistricting, protect language-minority and disabled voters, expand voter access, and ensure that eligible voters can cast ballots freely and have them counted.
CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION'S FOUNDATIONAL APPROACH
Voting is the engine of our democracy, with free and fair elections serving as the source of our government’s legitimacy. Voting rights are thus central to democratic order and the rule of law. As the Supreme Court said nearly 140 years ago, the right to vote is “a fundamental political right, because [it is] preservative of all rights.” Having and exercising the right to vote is a core ingredient of democratic inclusion.
Voting Rights Act: Ensuring Equal Access to the Ballot
Since its creation in 1957, the Civil Rights Division has worked to secure voting rights for all Americans. The Division enforces the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), one of our nation’s core civil rights statutes. The VRA was enacted to overcome persistent and often violent resistance to Black citizens’ efforts to register and vote in the southern states. Section 2 of the VRA, which applies nationwide, prohibits voting practices and procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in a language-minority group. Other provisions of the VRA require certain jurisdictions to provide bilingual election materials and assistance to voters with limited English proficiency. And the Americans with Disabilities Act likewise requires that individuals with disabilities be afforded a full and equal opportunity to vote in all elections.
For decades, the Division brought cases under the VRA to challenge redistricting plans and other voting procedures that denied racial and language-minority voters a fair chance to participate in the political process. Most of the Division’s VRA cases challenged discrimination at the local level—in cities, counties, and towns around the country. Thanks in part to the VRA, the electoral process truly is more open and inclusive today than it was in 1965. But despite significant improvements, discriminatory voting practices persist. In just the last 25 years, the Division brought VRA cases in nearly half the states, striking down practices that primarily impeded voters of color from having an equal opportunity to participate in the political life of their communities.
Making Voter Registration Simple, Accessible, and Fair
The Civil Rights Division also enforces the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), sometimes called the Motor Voter Act, which Congress enacted in 1993 to expand voter registration and participation in federal elections. The law requires states to offer voter registration through the mail, at driver’s license offices, and when people apply for public assistance or disability services. The NVRA also creates requirements for how states maintain voter registration lists for federal elections, including limitations on how and when names may be removed from the voter rolls. These provisions promote accurate voter registration lists and guard against the incorrect removal of eligible voters.
The Division also enforces some parts of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), including provisions requiring poll workers to provide a provisional ballot when a voter declares they are duly registered but their name does not appear in the poll book. Other provisions of HAVA require jurisdictions to provide at least one accessible voting machine at each polling place to permit voters with disabilities to vote independently.
Protecting the Voting Rights of Military and Overseas Citizens
The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) requires states to allow members of the military, their family members, and U.S. citizens residing overseas to register and vote absentee in elections for federal offices. When requested by a UOCAVA voter, states must send the voter an absentee ballot early enough for the voter to receive it, complete it, and send it back. When states have failed to make sure that ballots are sent to qualified UOCAVA-protected voters in a timely manner, the Civil Rights Division has successfully obtained court orders and consent decrees to ensure that qualified service members and overseas voters were able to cast their ballots and know that they were counted.
WHAT’S CHANGED SINCE
JANUARY 20, 2025?
Civil Rights Division political leadership has redirected voting enforcement from protecting the right to vote toward undermining it. Dismissing Voting Rights Act (VRA) cases, taking positions to weaken VRA protections, pressuring states to dismantle equal-opportunity districts, and demanding mass voter registration data have stripped back hard-won protections and threaten confidence in free and fair elections.
WHAT'S CHANGED SINCE JANUARY 20, 2025?
The Civil Rights Division’s work on voting rights has changed dramatically under the current Trump administration.
Racial Discrimination Enforcement Has Been Gutted
Enforcement of statutes designed to eradicate racial discrimination in voting—traditionally the heart of the Division’s voting work—has been the hardest hit. In early 2025, the Division moved to dismiss most of its ongoing lawsuits, including cases enforcing Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. It has pressured states to dismantle voting districts that provide voters of color an equal opportunity to elect their candidates of choice. After decades of defending Section 2’s constitutionality, the Division urged the Supreme Court to adopt a heightened standard designed to make Section 2 challenges significantly harder to sustain—and the Court’s decision followed that path.
The Division has Reoriented its Mission around Alleged Voter Fraud
The Division says it is aggressively focused on preventing voter fraud and coordinating with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to identify alleged non-citizens on the voter rolls. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon issued a new mission statement to guide the Division’s voting rights work that centers politically-charged issues not grounded in the statutes the Division enforces, such as voting fraud, and makes no reference to racial discrimination in voting. The Division’s political leadership forced out the career chief of the Voting Section, replaced that leadership with a political appointee serving as acting chief, and later installed another acting chief who reportedly lacked federal election law experience.
The Division Has Sought Sweeping New Control Over Local Election Data
The Division has also pursued an alarming expansion of federal authority over local elections by demanding complete voter registration lists from all states and reportedly sharing the data it receives with DHS, including highly confidential information such as driver’s license and Social Security numbers. The Division has filed over 30 lawsuits against states and the District of Columbia to compel disclosure of the information. This approach is notable because voter fraud, particularly non-citizen voting, is exceedingly rare and would ordinarily be handled by criminal prosecutors outside of the Division.
Tracking the Changes
Voting Cases Shut Down Since January 20, 2025
Red Line does not include every Civil Rights Division case. Learn what Red Line tracks.
Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc. v. Secretary of State of Georgia
No. 23-13914 (11th Cir.)
On April 8, 2024, the Civil Rights Division filed a brief in an appeal challenging three Georgia electoral maps. After trial, the district court concluded that the State’s 2021 congressional, state senate, and state house maps violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting the voting strength of Black voters. The court found that Georgia needed to draw one additional majority-Black congressional district, two additional majority-Black state senate districts, and five additional majority-Black state house districts. The Division intervened to defend the constitutionality of Section 2; and Georgia appealed the district court’s ruling in favor of plaintiffs.
In its brief, the Division urged the Eleventh Circuit to affirm the district court’s ruling. Consistent with longstanding DOJ positions, the brief argued that Section 2 is constitutional, does not require proof of racial animus, and authorizes a private right of action.
Beginning in October 2025—nine months after oral argument—the Division moved to withdraw its brief, stating that the United States had reconsidered its position in light of the change in administration.
Pendergrass v. Secretary of the State of Georgia
No. 24-10231 (11th Cir.)
On May 10, 2024, the Civil Rights Division filed an amicus brief in this appeal addressing how the district court should remedy discrimination in Georgia’s congressional redistricting that diluted Black voting strength in violation of Section 2. The Division argued that the plaintiffs in the underlying litigation had standing to object to a remedial map that allegedly resulted in additional discrimination against Black voters and that the objections should be resolved in the present litigation.
The Division withdrew the filing on October 1, 2025.
LULAC v. Abbott
21-cv-00259 (W.D. Tex.)
The United States sued the State of Texas in December 2021, alleging that its redistricting plans for U.S. Congress and the Texas House of Representatives violated Section 2 of the VRA. Specifically, the United States alleged that Texas’s congressional redistricting plan intentionally minimized the voting strength of Black and Latino voters by, among other things, eliminating a West Texas district in which Latino voters had an equal opportunity to elect their candidates of choice and “surgically excis[ing]” Black and Latino voters from Dallas-Fort Worth-based districts and submerging them in nearby districts dominated by rural white voters.
The complaint further alleged that the Texas State House plan violated Section 2 because, among other things, it eliminated multiple districts that provided Latino voters an equal opportunity to elect their candidates of choice to the State legislature. According to the United States’ complaint, in every redistricting cycle since 1970, courts have found that one or more of Texas’ statewide redistricting plans violated the United States Constitution or the Voting Rights Act. The United States’ case was consolidated with related cases brought by individual voters and voting rights groups.
On March 6, 2025, the Civil Rights Division abruptly dismissed its claims against the State of Texas. Private plaintiffs continue to litigate the case.
Four months after dismissing the United States’ claims, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon sent a letter to Texas officials suggesting that four other districts in the Texas map (i.e., districts not addressed in the United States’ lawsuit) constitute impermissible racial gerrymanders. Read more about the July 7, 2025 Letter to Texas Regarding Redistricting.
Disability Rights Florida v. Secretary, State of Florida
No. 23-13727 (11th Cir.)
On January 30, 2024, the Civil Rights Division filed an amicus brief supporting Plaintiffs’ challenge to a state law requiring a “wet” (handwritten) signature on certain voter registration applications. The plaintiffs alleged that the requirement violates Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits denying the right to vote based on errors or omissions that are not “material” to determining whether a person is qualified to vote under state law. They argued that requiring a wet signature imposes unnecessary barriers for voters, including some people with disabilities.
The Division withdrew the amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs’ claims on May 6, 2025, citing the change of administration.
United States v. City of Hazleton
25-cv-00045 (M.D. Pa.)
On January 7, 2025, the Civil Rights Division sued the City of Hazleton, Pennsylvania under Section 2 of the VRA. The complaint alleged that the City’s at-large method of election for city council dilutes the voting strength of the city’s Hispanic residents.
According to the complaint, Hispanic voters in Hazleton regularly support the same candidates for city council, who consistently lose because white voters vote as a bloc against them. The complaint also cited evidence of hostility toward Hispanic residents, and socioeconomic disparities affecting Hispanic citizens’ ability to participate effectively in the political process. According to Census data, approximately 43% of the citizen voting age population of Hazleton is Hispanic. The complaint alleged that if the City’s five-member council were elected from single-member districts, a common remedy in this type of Section 2 case, Hispanic voters could comprise a majority in two voting districts.
On April 21, 2025, the Division voluntarily dismissed the case without explanation.
In re Georgia Senate Bill 202
21-mi-55555 (N.D. Ga.)
On June 25, 2021, the Civil Rights Division sued the State of Georgia under Section 2 of the VRA, challenging an omnibus election law (Senate Bill 202) that curtailed access to absentee voting, prohibited counties from counting certain provisional ballots, and criminalized providing food or water to voters waiting in long lines to vote, among other things. The complaint alleged that the Georgia legislature intentionally targeted the tools that Black voters had relied upon to achieve political success in recent elections, in ways disproportionately likely to impose heightened burdens on Black voters. The United States’ case was consolidated with several other cases in which individual voters and voting rights groups challenged SB 202 on similar grounds. In 2023, the district court preliminarily enjoined some provisions of SB 202, including the ban on providing food and water to voters waiting in line more than 150 feet from the polling place, but let most of the challenged provisions take effect while the lawsuit proceeded.
In March 2025, while motions for summary judgment were pending in the district court, Attorney General Pam Bondi ordered the Division to dismiss the lawsuit.
United States v. Houston County
25-cv-00025 (M.D. Ga.)
On January 16, 2025, the Civil Rights Division sued Houston County, Georgia under Section 2 of the VRA. The complaint alleged that the at-large method of election for the Houston County Board of Commissioners diluted the voting strength of Black citizens. According to the complaint, Black voters in Houston County have consistently voted for Black candidates in Board of Commissioners races, whether they ran as a Republican, Democrat, or Independent, and these candidates consistently lost because white voters voted as a bloc against them. The complaint also cited evidence of recent racially-charged incidents in Houston County and pervasive socioeconomic disparities that hinder the ability of Black residents to participate effectively in the political process. According to Census data, about 31% of the County’s voting age population identifies as Black. In March 2025, individual voters residing in Houston County intervened in the case.
On March 24, 2025, the United States voluntarily dismissed its Section 2 claim without explanation. The intervenor plaintiffs continue to litigate the case.
United States v. Alabama
24-cv-01329 (N.D. Ala.)
On September 27, 2024, the Civil Rights Division sued the State of Alabama for violations of the NVRA’s Quiet Period Provision, 52 U.S.C. § 20507(c)(2), which requires states to halt all systematic programs to remove names from the voter rolls at least 90 days before a federal election. The Quiet Period Provision helps mitigate the risk that errors in systematic list maintenance will result in the removal of eligible voters in the weeks leading up to a federal election, when it is likely that incorrectly removed voters would not be able to correct a state’s error in time to vote. Removals based on individualized information are permitted at any time.
According to the complaint, Alabama conducted systematic processes to remove alleged non-citizens from its voter rolls during the 90-day quiet period preceding the November 2024 election. The evidence showed that eligible voters (United States citizens) were incorrectly flagged for removal from the voter rolls because of this program. The State admitted it had incorrectly inactivated the registrations of thousands of U.S. citizens during the quiet period. The district court issued a preliminary injunction stopping the program before the November 2024 election, holding that Alabama’s “untimely program worked real harms to Alabama voters mere weeks before the 2024 general election,” including “inaccurately” referring thousands for criminal investigation.
Despite having secured preliminary relief, the Division announced that it voluntarily dismissed the case on March 14, 2025, without securing a final judgment or settlement.
United States v. Virginia
24-cv-01807 (E.D. Va.)
On October 11, 2024, the Civil Rights Division sued the Commonwealth of Virginia for violations of the NVRA’s Quiet Period Provision, 52 U.S.C. § 20507(c)(2), which requires states to halt all systematic programs to remove names from the voter rolls at least 90 days before a federal election. The Quiet Period Provision helps mitigate the risk that errors in systematic list maintenance will result in the removal of eligible voters in the weeks leading up to a federal election, when it is likely that incorrectly removed voters will not be able to correct a state’s error in time to vote. Removals based on individualized information are permitted at any time.
According to the complaint, Virginia conducted systematic processes to remove alleged non-citizens from its voter rolls during the 90-day quiet period preceding the November 2024 election. The evidence showed that eligible voters (United States citizens) were incorrectly flagged and removed from the voter rolls because of this program. The district court issued a preliminary injunction stopping the program before the November 2024 election, but the Supreme Court stayed the order before the election.
Despite having secured preliminary relief, the Division voluntarily dismissed the case on January 28, 2025, without securing a final judgment or settlement. Private plaintiffs continue to litigate the case.
Voting Cases Pursued Since January 20, 2025
Red Line does not include every Civil Rights Division case. Learn what Red Line tracks.
United States v. Evans (Washington, D.C.)
25-cv-04403 (D.D.C.), No. 26-5296 (D.C. Cir.)
On December 18, 2025, DOJ’s Civil Rights Division announced it had sued the District of Columbia under the Civil Rights Act of 1960 to compel the disclosure of the District’s complete voter registration list, including highly confidential personally identifiable information (e.g., driver’s license numbers or the last four digits of Social Security numbers).
On March 20, 2026, eighteen former Civil Rights Division attorneys filed an amicus brief opposing the Division’s attempt to compel production of sensitive voter records. The attorneys, including trial attorneys, Deputy Chiefs, and Chiefs, worked in voting enforcement for the Division in careers collectively spanning from 1968 to 2025. The brief carefully catalogs DOJ’s longstanding interpretation of the relevant statutes and its past practice of seeking voting information, concluding that the Division’s “sweeping request” here is “without adequate investigative rationale” and represents a “radical departure” from the Division’s “targeted, justified” requests in the past.
On August 6, 2026, the court dismissed the case in its entirety and with prejudice. Following the reasoning first articulated in United States v. Benson, the court held that the statewide voter registration list is not a “record or paper” within the meaning of the Act because the list is created by the state, not something that “comes into” election officials’ possession.
The court also traced the Act’s origins to the Eisenhower Administration’s push to give the Attorney General access to voter registration applications—not voter rolls—after Alabama authorized destruction of rejected registrants’ application forms and Louisiana drastically limited access to its voting records, undermining federal efforts to prove racial discrimination in registration. Based on that history, the court rejected DOJ’s characterization of the distinction between registration records and registration lists as merely “pedantic.”
The Division appealed this decision on August 18, 2026.
This lawsuit arose from DOJ’s unprecedented decision to seek voter registration data from every state, an expansive exercise of federal authority that the Civil Rights Division ties to “election integrity” and President Trump’s March 25, 2025, Executive Order.
United States v. Simon (Minnesota)
25-cv-03761 (D. Minn.), No. 26-2679 (8th Cir.)
On September 25, 2025, the Civil Rights Division announced that it sued Minnesota under the National Voter Registration Act, the Help America Vote Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1960 to compel disclosure of the State’s complete statewide voter registration list, including highly confidential personally identifiable information (e.g., driver’s license or last four digits of Social Security numbers). According to the lawsuit, Minnesota refused to provide the requested information, citing privacy and other concerns.
On January 24, 2026, amid escalating tensions surrounding federal immigration enforcement operations in Minneapolis—including the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti—Attorney General Pam Bondi sent a letter to Governor Tim Walz demanding cooperation to “restore the rule of law, support ICE officers, and bring an end to the chaos in Minnesota.” The Attorney General’s demands included the “common sense” turnover of Minnesota’s voter roll data sought in this litigation.
The letter was sent less than two weeks after a federal court rejected the Division’s voter-data demands to California in a nearly identical lawsuit (United States v. Weber) as an unlawful “fishing expedition” that violated privacy laws.
On February 26, 2026, sixteen former Civil Rights Division attorneys filed an amicus brief, opposing the Division’s attempt to compel production of sensitive voter records. The attorneys, including trial attorneys, Deputy Chiefs, and Chiefs, worked in voting enforcement for the Civil Rights Division in careers collectively spanning from 1968 to 2025. The brief catalogs DOJ’s longstanding interpretation of the relevant statutes and its past practice of seeking voting information, concluding that the Division’s “sweeping request” here is “without adequate investigative rationale” and represents a “radical departure” from the Division’s “targeted, justified” requests in the past.
On August 17, 2026, the court dismissed the case in its entirety and with prejudice. Following the reasoning first articulated in United States v. Benson, the court held that the statewide voter registration list is not a “record or paper” within the meaning of the Act because the list is created by the state, not something that “comes into” election officials’ possession.
The court also rejected DOJ’s claim under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) because it “contains no provision requiring disclosure.” Finding DOJ’s complaint “contains no allegation that the State Defendants failed, in any way, to comply with HAVA’s list-maintenance requirements,” the court rejected DOJ’s attempt to circumvent the necessary requirement to gather and allege a violation of law before filing a lawsuit. “[A]n ordinary litigant isn’t allowed to seek discovery first and allege a claim later, and the federal government has no special privilege to do so either.”
DOJ appealed this decision on August 18, 2026.
This lawsuit is rooted in the Division’s unprecedented decision to send letters to all states seeking voter registration data, an expansive exercise of federal authority that the Division ties to “election integrity” and the President’s March 25, 2025, Executive Order.
United States v. Griswold (Colorado)
25-cv-03967 (D. Colo.)
On December 11, 2025, DOJ’s Civil Rights Division announced it sued Colorado under the Civil Rights Act of 1960 to compel disclosure of the state’s complete statewide voter registration list, including highly confidential personally identifiable information (e.g., driver’s license number or last four digits of Social Security numbers).
On February 18, 2026 eighteen former Civil Rights Divisions attorneys filed an amicus brief opposing the Division’s attempt to compel production of sensitive voter records. The attorneys, including trial attorneys and senior officials, worked in voting enforcement for the Civil Rights Division and their collective service spanned 1968 to 2025. The brief catalogs DOJ’s longstanding interpretation of the relevant statutes and its past practice of seeking voting information, concluding that the Division’s “sweeping request” here is “without adequate investigative rationale” and represents a “radical departure” from the “targeted, justified” requests in the past.
On August 3, 2026, the court dismissed the Division’s lawsuit in its entirety with prejudice. Following the reasoning first articulated in United States v. Benson, the court held that the statewide voter registration list is not a “record or paper” within the meaning of the Act because the list is created by the state, not something that “comes into” election officials’ possession. The court also found DOJ’s demand letter “failed to provide a sufficient basis and purpose for requesting the nonpublic [statewide voter registration list].”
This lawsuit arose from DOJ’s unprecedented decision to seek voter registration data from every state, an expansive exercise of federal authority that the Civil Rights Division ties to “election integrity” and President Trump’s March 25, 2025, Executive Order.
United States v. Matthews (Illinois)
25-cv-03398 (C.D. Ill.)
On December 18, 2025, DOJ’s Civil Rights Division announced it sued Illinois under the Civil Rights Act of 1960 to compel the disclosure of the state’s complete voter registration list, including highly confidential personally identifiable information (e.g., driver’s license number or last four digits of Social Security numbers).
On March 2, 2026, eighteen former Civil Rights Division attorneys filed an amicus brief opposing the Division’s attempt to compel production of sensitive voter records. The attorneys, including trial attorneys and senior officials, worked in voting enforcement for the Civil Rights Division and their collective service spanned 1968 to 2025. The brief catalogs DOJ’s longstanding interpretation of the relevant statutes and its past practice of seeking voting information, concluding that the Division’s “sweeping request” here is “without adequate investigative rationale” and represents a “radical departure” from the “targeted, justified” requests in the past.
On July 31, 2026, the court dismissed the case in its entirety with prejudice. Following the reasoning first articulated in United States v. Benson, the court held that the statewide voter registration list is not a “record or paper” within the meaning of the Act because the list is created by the state, not something that “comes into” election officials’ possession.
The court also found that DOJ’s “written demand did not include both a sufficient basis and legitimate purpose for requesting the unredacted voter registration list.” In particular, the court found DOJ’s letter “did not provide any factual basis” for its demand. The court further found that DOJ’s purpose for the records was illegitimate because a valid purpose must relate to investigating voting-rights violations, consistent with Congress’s intent in passing the Act. The court put succinctly: “Congress did not confer a general auditing power to the DOJ over state election officials.”
This lawsuit arose from DOJ’s unprecedented decision to seek voter registration data from every state, an expansive exercise of federal authority that the Civil Rights Division ties to “election integrity” and President Trump’s March 25, 2025, Executive Order.
United States v. Caldwell (New Jersey)
26-cv-02025 (D.N.J.)
On February 26, 2026, DOJ’s Civil Rights Division announced it had sued New Jersey under the Civil Rights Act of 1960 to compel disclosure of the state’s complete statewide voter registration list, including highly confidential personally identifiable information (e.g., driver’s license numbers or the last four digits of Social Security numbers). According to the complaint, New Jersey refused to provide the requested information, citing privacy concerns.
While the litigation was still pending, on July 21, 2026, New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill publicly disclosed that due to an administrative error within the state’s Motor Vehicles Commission, approximately 6,600 non-citizens had been accidentally added to the state’s voter rolls, roughly 400 of whom went on to vote in various elections between June 2023 and June 2024.
In response, DOJ sent a letter to the governor that same day, requesting personally identifiable information on all of the 6,600 non-citizens who were added to the voter rolls, plus additional information related to the 400 people who voted. The governor denied DOJ’s request.
DOJ also notified the court of the error, seeking to essentially bootstrap the governor’s disclosure as an additional rationale to support its 2025 request for the entire statewide voter registration list.
On July 29, 2026, a week after the governor’s public disclosure, the court dismissed DOJ’s complaint in its entirety. Following the reasoning first articulated in United States v. Benson, the court held that the statewide voter registration list is not a “record or paper” within the meaning of the Civil Rights Act because the list is created by the state, not something that “comes into” election officials’ possession.
In a footnote, the judge acknowledged DOJ’s filing regarding the state’s disclosure of the registration errors, but found it irrelevant to the court’s analysis.
This lawsuit arose from DOJ’s unprecedented decision to seek voter registration data from every state, an expansive exercise of federal authority that the Civil Rights Division ties to “election integrity” and President Trump’s March 25, 2025, Executive Order.
United States v. Adams (Kentucky)
26-cv-00019 (E.D. Ky.) No. 26-5657 (6th Cir.)
On February 26, 2026, DOJ’s Civil Rights Division announced it sued Kentucky under the Civil Rights Act of 1960 to compel disclosure of the State’s complete statewide voter registration list, including highly confidential personally identifiable information (e.g., driver’s license number or last four digits of Social Security numbers).
On July 23, 2026, the court dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety and with prejudice. Following binding Sixth Circuit precedent in United States v. Benson, the court held that the statewide voter registration list is not a “record or paper” within the meaning of the Act because the list is created by the state, not something that “comes into” election officials’ possession. It further held that DOJ’s demand letter failed to include the required “basis” and “purpose” for the request, as the Act mandates.
On July 24, 2026, DOJ filed a notice of appeal.
This lawsuit arose from DOJ’s unprecedented decision to seek voter registration data from every state, an expansive exercise of federal authority that the Civil Rights Division ties to “election integrity” and President Trump’s March 25, 2025, Executive Order.
United States v. Koski (Virginia)
26-cv-00042 (E.D. Va.)
On January 16, 2026, DOJ’s Civil Rights Division announced that it sued Virginia under the Civil Rights Act of 1960 (CRA) to compel disclosure of the State’s complete statewide voter registration list, including highly confidential personally identifiable information (e.g., driver’s license or last four digits of Social Security numbers).
On July 14, 2026, the court dismissed the case in its entirety. Following the reasoning first articulated in United States v. Benson, the court held that the statewide voter registration list is not a “record or paper” within the meaning of the CRA because the list is created by the state, not something that “comes into” election officials’ possession.
This lawsuit arose from DOJ’s unprecedented decision to seek voter registration data from every state, an expansive exercise of federal authority that the Division ties to “election integrity” and the President’s March 25, 2025, Executive Order.
United States v. Warner (West Virginia)
26-cv-00156 (S.D.W. Va.)
On February 26, 2026, DOJ’s Civil Rights Division announced it sued West Virginia under Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 to compel disclosure of the State’s complete statewide voter registration list, including highly confidential personally identifiable information (e.g., driver’s license number or last four digits of Social Security numbers). According to the lawsuit, West Virginia refused to provide the requested information.
On July 13, 2026, the court dismissed the case in its entirety. The court traced Title III to its Jim Crow-era purpose of ending voting discrimination, then held that any demand for records under that law “must relate to a purpose of investigating violations of individuals’ voting rights.” DOJ’s only “only apparent motivation,” the court found, was “generalized nationwide concerns that voter registration records may contain too many names.”
The Judge also added in a footnote: “Given the lack of an adequate basis or purpose, one is left to wonder what the real purpose was for the Justice Department to go to the trouble of filing civil actions like this one all around the nation. Troubling though this question is, it is not before the Court at this time.”
This lawsuit arose from DOJ’s unprecedented decision to seek voter registration data from every state, an expansive exercise of federal authority that DOJ ties to “election integrity” and the President’s March 25, 2025, Executive Order.
United States v. New York
25-cv-01338 (N.D.N.Y.)
On September 25, 2025, the Civil Rights Division announced that it sued New York under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), and the Civil Rights Act of 1960 (CRA) to compel disclosure of the State’s complete statewide voter registration list, including highly confidential personally identifiable information (e.g., driver’s license or last four digits of Social Security numbers). According to the lawsuit, New York refused to provide the requested information, citing privacy and other concerns.
On July 10, 2026, the court dismissed the case in its entirety. Following the reasoning first articulated in United States v. Benson, the court held that the statewide voter registration list is not a “record or paper” within the meaning of the CRA because the list is created by the state, not something that “comes into” election officials’ possession. The court also rejected DOJ’s NVRA claim, reasoning that Congress intended the statute to apply only to records pertaining to the NVRA’s required list maintenance process, not the lists themselves. Finally, the court noted that DOJ “concedes that HAVA lacks any inspection or disclosure provisions” and had filed the claim to “use discovery in hopes of finding an unpled HAVA violation,” an approach that “inverts civil procedure.” The court dismissed the HAVA claim on that basis.
This lawsuit arose from DOJ’s unprecedented decision to seek voter registration data from every state, an expansive exercise of federal authority that the Division ties to “election integrity” and the President’s March 25, 2025, Executive Order.
United States v. Demarinis (Maryland)
25-cv-03934 (D. Md.), No. 26-1878 (4th Cir.)
On December 2, 2025, the Civil Rights Division announced it sued Maryland under the Civil Rights Act of 1960 to compel disclosure of the State’s complete statewide voter registration list, including highly confidential personally identifiable information (e.g., driver’s license number or last four digits of Social Security numbers). According to the lawsuit, Maryland refused to provide the requested information, citing privacy concerns.
On February 6, 2026 seventeen former Civil Rights Divisions attorneys filed an amicus brief opposing the Division’s attempt to compel production of sensitive voter records. The attorneys, including trial attorneys, Deputy Chiefs, and Chiefs, worked in voting enforcement for the Civil Rights Division in careers collectively spanning from 1968 to 2025. The brief carefully catalogs DOJ’s longstanding interpretation of the relevant statutes and its past practice of seeking voting information, concluding that the Division’s “sweeping request” here is “without adequate investigative rationale” and represents a “radical departure” from the Division’s “targeted, justified” requests in the past.
On June 18, 2026, the court dismissed the case in its entirety. Quoting extensively from United States v. Benson, the court found that the statewide voter registration list is not a record or paper within the meaning of Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 because the list is created by the state, not something that “comes into” election officials’ possession. The court was similarly unmoved by the May 12, 2026 Office of Legal Counsel opinion cited by DOJ: “This Court will not interpret the [Civil Rights Act] contrary to its text simply because an office of the party advancing that interpretation has adopted it.”
The Division appealed this decision on July 6, 2026.
This lawsuit is rooted in the Division’s unprecedented decision to send letters to all states seeking voter registration data, an expansive exercise of federal authority that the Division ties to “election integrity” and the President’s March 25, 2025, Executive Order.
CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT
Born in Reconstruction. Federal civil rights accountability at its core.
EMPLOYMENT
Equal opportunity at work is essential to economic security, dignity, and full civic participation.
POLICING
The Constitution and federal law exist to protect people from abuses of power—including by those sworn to uphold it.
DISABILITY
Federal civil rights laws guarantee people with disabilities equal participation in community life.
VOTING
The right to vote is foundational to democracy and equal participation in civic life.
HOUSING & GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Where people live and access services shapes opportunity.
EDUCATION
Rooted in Brown v. Board of Education, federal civil rights laws guarantee equal access to education.
LGBTQI+
Protections for LGBTQI+ people in work, education, healthcare, and public life grounded in equality and dignity.
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTHCARE
Protecting access to reproductive healthcare by safeguarding patients, providers, and facilities.