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.
No Results Found
The posts you requested could not be found. Try changing your module settings or create some new posts.
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. Philip McGrane (Idaho)
26-cv-00197 (D. Idaho)
On April 1, 2026, the Civil Rights Division announced that it sued Idaho 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).
Prior to the lawsuit, Idaho refused to turn over the data, citing the Department’s disclosure of personal data in an unrelated lawsuit. Idaho Secretary of State Philip McGrane told the Division, “While I appreciate the Department’s representation that Idaho’s data will be safeguarded, I cannot take that now-apparent risk in the absence of clear legal duty to do so.”
On May 21, 2026, the District court granted Idaho’s Motion to Stay, pending rulings by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Weber and United States v. Oregon.
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 March 25, 2025, Executive Order.
Louisiana v. Callais
24-109 (U.S. Supreme Court)
On April 29, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling regarding the Voting Rights Act with far-reaching consequences in this case regarding Louisiana’s congressional districts. The Supreme Court announced a heightened standard for claims brought under Section 2 of the Act, which prohibits racial discrimination in voting practices, including districting. The Court held that plaintiffs must now effectively prove intentional racial discrimination and, critically, must disentangle race from politics in doing so. In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan warned that this standard would render Section 2 “all but a dead letter.”
The Civil Rights Division’s role in the case marked a significant reversal of its prior position. On January 24, 2025, the Department of Justice withdrew its December 2024 brief defending the constitutionality of Louisiana’s congressional map which included a second majority-Black district designed to remedy prior judicial findings of discrimination under Section 2.
In September 2025, the Division urged the Court to strike down Louisiana’s map and rewrite the longstanding framework for Section 2 cases, arguing that plaintiffs should have to decouple race from politics and show an objective likelihood of intentional discrimination. The Court’s decision largely tracked the position advanced by the Division, substantially narrowing the ability of plaintiffs to challenge racial discrimination under the Voting Rights Act.
United States v. Weber (California)
25-cv-09149 (C.D. Cal.), No. 26-1232 (9th Cir.)
On September 25, 2025, the Civil Rights Division announced that it sued California 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, California refused to provide the requested information, citing privacy concerns.
On December 22, 2025, seventeen 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 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 January 15, 2026, the district court dismissed the Division’s lawsuit in its entirety, issuing a sweeping rebuke of the federal government’s effort to compel disclosure of California’s unredacted statewide voter registration rolls.
The court repeatedly characterized the Division’s demand as an unlawful and unprecedented “fishing expedition,” rejecting the Division’s asserted justification as “both lacking in depth and…contrived,” and warning that the case reflected a broader attempt at “unbridled consolidation of all elections power in the Executive”—an outcome the court described as “antithetical to the promise of fair and free elections our country promises and the franchise that civil rights leaders fought and died for.”
The court emphasized that “even the federal government is not permitted to sue first, obtain discovery, and finalize its allegations later,” and made clear that it was “not required to accept pretextual, formalistic explanations untethered to the reality of what the government has said outside of the courtroom.” It concluded that the statutes the Division invoked do not authorize the disclosure sought, the Division failed to allege any plausible violation of federal voting laws, and that the demand for California’s unredacted voter rolls “violates a plethora of federal privacy laws.”
Situating the case within the Division’s broader campaign to demand voter-registration data from states nationwide, the court warned of the cumulative danger of such actions: “The taking of democracy does not occur in one fell swoop; it is chipped away piece-by-piece until there is nothing left. The case before the Court is one of these cuts that imperils all Americans.”
On February 25, 2026, the Division filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit. Despite having waited six weeks to file an appeal, on March 3, the Division sought expedited consideration of the appeal, asserting that the case “raises an issue of urgency regarding the security of federal elections in the United States” and warning that the “appeal will become moot considering the impending federal election.” The emergency motion implies that ineligible voters, including “noncitizens, deceased voters, and voters with multiple records,” may remain on the rolls if DOJ is not given prompt access to voter registration records, even though the Division has not offered evidence of a problem with California’s voter rolls or election administration in other states.
On April 22, 2026, sixteen former Civil Rights Division attorneys filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit appeal. Like the brief filed in the district court, the attorneys here include line attorneys and managers who directed voting rights laws for the Division in careers collectively spanning 1968-2025.
Letter to Wayne County, Michigan Requesting November 2024 Election Information
On April 14, 2026, the Civil Rights Division sent a letter to election officials in Wayne County, Michigan requesting all absentee and provisional ballots, ballot receipts, and ballot envelopes from the November 2024 federal election. Wayne County, where Detroit is located, has long been targeted by President Trump and his allies over debunked claims of widespread election fraud.
In its letter, the Division cited three criminal cases involving isolated incidents of voting fraud from several years ago, as well as Constantino v. Detroit, et al., where private plaintiffs unsuccessfully sought to stop the certification of the November 2020 election results. In Constantino, the court found that “election challengers who paint a picture of sinister fraudulent activities” did not fully understand the balloting process and their “interpretation of events is incorrect and not credible.” The court’s decision in Constantino was upheld by the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court. Nevertheless, the Division characterized Constantino as among the “allegations concerning the election procedures in Wayne County” that justifies its inquiry. Ordinarily, a judicial rejection of the same factual allegations underlying a proposed investigation would weigh against opening it—not be cited as support for it.
Wayne County responded that it “is not the legal custodian of the records,” pointed out that the “unsubstantiated claims made in a failed lawsuit 6 years ago” concern actions that would not be performed by the Wayne County Clerk, and directed the Division to the city and township clerks within the county.
United States v. Nago (Hawaii)
25-cv-00522 (D. Haw.)
On December 11, 2025, the Civil Rights Division announced it sued Hawaii 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, Hawaii refused to provide the requested information, citing privacy concerns.
On February 25, 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 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 April 6, 2026, the court stayed the case pending rulings by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Weber and United States v. Oregon. In granting Hawaii’s request for a stay, the court rejected the United States’ prejudice argument given that the United States “merely speculates about unspecified noncompliance by the State.”
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. Ziriax (Oklahoma)
26-cv-00361 (W.D. Okla.)
DOJ’s Civil Rights Division entered into a settlement agreement on March 24, 2026 with Oklahoma to resolve its lawsuit seeking access to the State’s unredacted voter registration list.
On February 26, 2026, the Civil Rights Division announced it sued Oklahoma 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 complaint, Oklahoma refused to provide the requested information.
Under the settlement agreement, Oklahoma agreed to provide the requested unredacted voter registration list and the Division agreed to use the information solely to assess Oklahoma’s compliance with the National Voter Registration Act, (NVRA) the Help American Vote Act (HAVA), and other civil rights laws delegated to the Civil Rights Division. Pursuant to the agreement, the lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed the same day. Oklahoma reports having over 2.5 million registered voters as of January 2026.
This lawsuit is rooted in the Division’s unprecedented decision to seek complete, unredacted voter registration lists from all states plus the District of Columbia, an expansive exercise of federal authority that the Division ties to “election integrity” and the President’s March 25, 2025, Executive Order.
As of the date of the settlement, the first three courts to consider similar demands from the Division (United States v. Weber, United States v. Benson, and United States v. Oregon) all dismissed the Division’s lawsuits. More courts soon followed.
United States v. Thomas (Connecticut)
26-cv-00021 (D. Conn.)
On January 6, 2026, DOJ’s Civil Rights Division announced that it sued Connecticut 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 or last four digits of Social Security numbers).
On March 6, 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 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 DOJ’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 July 17, 2026, the court dismissed the Division’s lawsuit 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.
DOJ appealed this decision on July 23, 2026 to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
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. Oregon
25-cv-01666 (D. Or.), No. 26-01231 (9th Cir.)
On September 16, 2025, the Civil Rights Division announced that it had sued Oregon under the National Voter Registration Act, the Help America Vote Act, and 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 or last four digits of Social Security numbers). According to the lawsuit, Oregon refused to provide the requested information, citing privacy concerns and consistency with state law.
On February 5, 2026, the court dismissed the case in a clear rebuke of the Division’s efforts in Oregon and nationally. The court held that demands for records under Title III must be tied to investigating violations of individuals’ voting rights. The court concluded that the Division’s stated purpose—investigating list-maintenance procedures—did not satisfy that requirement. Although courts ordinarily afford the federal government a presumption of regularity, the court explained that the Division’s own statements and conduct rebutted that presumption here.
The court further found that the Division’s conduct outside the complaint raised serious doubts about its true purposes. In particular, the court pointed to a January 24, 2026, letter from Attorney General Pam Bondi to Minnesota Governor Tim Walz addressing immigration enforcement, which included a demand that Minnesota allow the Division access to voter rolls. The placement of that demand within a letter focused on immigration enforcement, the court explained, “casts serious doubt as to the true purposes for which [the Division] is seeking voter registration lists.”
Finally, the court cited the Division’s public statements that it intended to create a nationwide database of confidential voter information and use it in “unprecedented ways,” including for immigration enforcement. The court described these statements as “chilling” and warned that use of state voter data for such purposes—absent congressional authorization—”may very well lead to an erosion of voting rights and voter participation.”
On February 25, 2026, the Division filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit. Despite having waited nearly three weeks to file an appeal, on March 3, the Division sought expedited consideration of the appeal, asserting that the case “raises an issue of urgency regarding the security of federal elections in the United States” and warning that the “appeal will become moot considering the impending federal election.” The emergency motion implies that ineligible voters, including “noncitizens, deceased voters, and voters with multiple records,” may remain on the rolls if DOJ is not given prompt access to voter registration records, even though the Division has not offered evidence of a problem with Oregon’s voter rolls or election administration in other states.
United States v. Henderson (Utah)
26-cv-00166 (D. Utah)
On February 26, 2026, the Civil Rights Division announced it sued Utah 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, Utah refused to provide the requested information.
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. Alexander (Fulton County, Georgia)
25-cv-07084 (N.D. Ga.)
On December 12, 2025, the Civil Rights Division announced it sued the Fulton County Clerk of Courts under the Civil Rights Act of 1960 to compel disclosure of all used ballots and related documents for the 2020 election. According to the lawsuit filed December 11, 2025, the Clerk refused to provide the requested documents because they were sealed by another court.
In 2023, the Georgia’s State Election Board, with assistance from the FBI, cleared Fulton County officials of fraud related to the 2020 election, but a newly composed Election Board with a Republican majority moved to reopen that investigation.
On January 29, 2026, the FBI reportedly executed a search warrant to seize records from the 2020 election as part of a criminal investigation. Fulton County subsequently filed a lawsuit seeking the return of approximately 656 boxes of seized records. Acknowledging that Fulton County no longer possesses the records following the search, the Civil Rights Division asked the court to stay the civil proceedings pending outcome of the criminal investigation on February 6, 2026. The court granted the motion to stay and administratively closed the case on February 17, 2026. Fulton County has been a central focus of repeatedly debunked claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen. It is also the same county where President Trump was criminally charged for efforts to overturn the state’s election result.
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.